1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 285 of 2025 • Sanjay Kumar Shrivas S/o Lakhan Lal Shrivas Aged About 43 Years R/o Parsabhantha Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Saraswati Shrivas W/o Sanjay Kumar Shrivas Aged About 36 Years R/o Parsabhantha Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present Address R/o Village Dongakouhroud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Saurya Shrivas S/o Sanjay Kumar Shrivas Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Natural Mother Namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas / Respondent No. 1 Herein, R/o Parsabhantha Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present Address R/o Village Dongakouhroud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. Saumya Shrivas S/o Sanjay Kumar Shrivas Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Mother Namely Smt. Saraswati Shrivas / Respondent No. 1 Herein, R/o Parsabhantha Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present Address R/o Village Dongakouhroud, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 14:41:51 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Rupendra Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicants : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. The present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Chhattisgarh, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 303/2023 whereby an appeal under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondents herein had moved an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance against the petitioner herein/husband claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month stating inter alia that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at village Dongakouhroud, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on 06.05.2006. Thereafter, they resided together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, two sons namely Sourya and Soumya i.e. respondent no.2 and 3 herein were born. 3 after some time of marriage, the husband of the respondent no.1 developed extra marital relationship with one Nirmala Shrivas, which was objected by the respondent no.1 and due to which the husband started to committed marpit with her and ousted her from the matrimonial house and then she approached her parental house. she further stated that the subsequently the petitioner performed second marriage with one Nirmala Shrivas in existing of first marriage and out of their wedlock one daughter has born. She further stated that her husband did not maintain her. She has no independent source of income to maintain herself. Her husband is having handsome income i.e. Rs. 500/- per days as he is running Selon, apart from that, he has agriculture land and is earning from there. after receiving the notice from the learned Family Court, the petitioner husband filed his return denying the contention put forth by the petitioner except the admitted facts stating inter alia that his wife left matrimonial home voluntarily and residing separately at her parental house without any sufficient reason. He tried several times to take her back to her matrimonial house but she refused to come back. It was further stated that he and his family members have never threatened and allegations is false. It is further stated that in the previous occasion, the wife of the petitioner was 4 filed an application for grant of maintenance, which was closed on 14.09.2019 and therefore, on the same ground the application for grant of maintenance is not maintainable. Allegation of extra marital relationship is concerned, she is caretaker of his children and has no relationship. He further stated that allegations made against him are baseless. He is a labour and has no fix income per month. He has no agriculture land. The wife of the petitioner is working and earning and is being fully capable to maintain herself. The parties were examined their witnesses before the leaned Family to prove their cases. After hearing the argument of the parties and after due consideration, the learned Family Court vide its order dated 30.01.2025 has been partly allowed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month to each of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned court below has erred by holding that the respondent/wife is living separately with sufficient reasons but there are ample and other reasons are available on records, which has not been properly considered by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order and has fixed the 5 monthly maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 6000/- to the respondents which is on the higher side. He further submits that the allegations made against the applicant are baseless and he is a labour and has no fix income per month and he has no agriculture land. He further submits that the respondent along with children are living separately on their own will and she is able to maintain herself therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned order dated 30.01.2025. 4. I have heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the respondent No.-1 had filed application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and the same was allowed on 30.01.2025 and granted Rs. 2,000/- each to the respondents. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that the respondent No. 1 had to leave her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason, therefore, learned Family Court has not granted any maintenance amount to the respondent No.1 (wife of the applicant). As far as concerned of respondent No. 2 and 3, it is admitted fact that they are minor children of the 6 applicant and they are unable to maintain themselves therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2025, in which there is no need for interference. 7. This Court of the considered view, there is neither illegality nor perversity in the order impugned and also there is no judicial error committed by the learned Family Court. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali