1 / 5 2025:CGHC:10086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 274 of 202 5 • Bhagat Ram S/o Shri Banshi Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Bicharpur, Shuklabhantha, Post Office- Fasterpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.), At Present R/o Village- Saragpur, Post Office- Kamlabad Badhauli, Pargana-Mahona, Tahsil- Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow (U.P.) ... Applicant VERSUS • Smt. Mandakani W/o Bhagat Ram Aged About 47 Years D/o Bedram, R/o Village- Bicharpur, Shuklabhantha, Post Office- Fasterpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.). At Present R/o Village And Post Office- Kosamtara, Police Station- Fasterpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vishvanath Shriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 28/02/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.102/2024, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance of total amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2. Facts of this case in nutshell are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1995 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. When even after few years of marriage, no child was born between them due to which it is alleged that applicant started ill-treating the respondent and dispute took PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 place. As the parties did not have any child from their married life, respondent got her uncle’s daughter Rameshwari Sahu married to applicant as his second wife and he started living with both the wives. It is further alleged that, after the second marriage, applicant stopped loving his first wife, beat up the respondent and also threw her out of the house. Applicant has three children from his second wife. After some time, when applicant and respondent went to participate in the funeral of father of respondent, she stated to stay there with her mother and never returned back to the house of applicant and she started living at her parental house at village Kosamtara, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli. It was further averred that respondent has no source of income to survival. Applicant and Rameshwari have a 1000 sqft land/house in Lucknow in their joint name and 70 decimal land in village Kosamtara and 50 decimal land at village Shuklabhata. Applicant works as a Contractor in Lucknow and earns an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- from agricultural work and hence the respondent had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting total maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month against the applicant. 3. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application. Learned family Court after examining the witnesses and after recording the evidence and framing issues allowed the maintenance application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the family court below is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contented that after several years of marriage, when applicant and respondent did not have any child, the respondent on own 3 / 5 got her uncle’s daughter Rameshwari Sahu married to applicant as his second wife and started living with them. After death of respondent’s father when applicant along with respondent when to attend dashgatra program, respondent on her own stayed there and never returned the house of the applicant, therefore she is not liable to get the benefit of interim maintenance under the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that applicant is always ready to keep the respondent along with him and when applicant tried to bring her back from her parental house she refused to come with him. Learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is not a Contractor but a laborer earning Rs. 300/- to 500/- and has stated that applicant is having a two rooms incomplete house at Lucknow, hence, the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside. It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court and pass suitable order in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration the documents and evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicant/respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 4 / 5 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed that the the applicant/husband has denied the fact of doing contract work and has stated working as a labourer in Lucknow in relation to his income earning capacity and has further stated that the respondent earns her livelihood by farming on 70 decimel agricultural land in her name situated at village Kosamtara but the applicant/ husband has not provided any documentary evidence in this regard. It also appears that, respondent has given evidence of applicant’s earning Rs. 5 to 7 Lakh per annum from doing contract work in Lucknow and from agricultural work and also that applicant is having 1000 sq.ft. of land/ house in Lucknow and 70 decimel land in village Kosamtara and 50 decimel land in village Shuklabhata and in support of her evidence she has submitted the revenue record Ext. A-1 of the agricultural land in the name of applicant. The respondent is a married wife of the applicant. There is sufficient reason for the respondent to live separately from the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for maintaining his wife. 9. From the above findings, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent has been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent, and further taking into consideration the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities, the maintenance granted by the family Court cannot be stated to be wrong, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case 5 / 5 No.102/2024 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) pwn JUDGE