1 2025:CGHC:31295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 269 of 2021 Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Aasharam Sahu Aged About 57 Years Caste Teli Agriculturist, Village Bagdongri, Police Station And Tahsil Charama District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Chhabila Bai Sahu W/o Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 55 Years Caste Teli Agriculturist, R/o Village Gotitola , Police Station And Tahsil Charama District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Bhagbati D/o Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years Caste Teli Agriculturist, R/o Village Gotitola , Police Station And Tahsil Charama District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2021, which is an application for condonation of delay of 362 days in filing the instant criminal revision. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2021 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Kanker District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.01/2020 (Annexure A-1), whereby learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the non- applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.2/daughter (total 3500/- per month). Being aggrieved by the impugned order hence, this revision. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the non- applicant No. 1 and the applicant were married in the year 1982 according to Hindu customs and rituals and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2, Bhagwati, was born. After four years of marriage, the applicant brought one Kumari Bai, resident of Kandel, to Bagdongari and began keeping her as his wife. A family meeting was held in the concerned village on 30/03/2018 regarding the same. Apart from the undisputed facts stated in the application of the non-applicants, it is also mentioned that after the applicant began living with Kumari Bai as his wife, he started harassing the non-applicants, due to which they were compelled to return and stay at their maternal home. During the meeting on 30/03/2018, the applicant agreed to give them 1.12 acres of land, but when asked to fulfill this promise, he abused them and drove them away. The 3 applicant owns agricultural land in village Bagdongari bearing Khasra numbers 146/1, 252/2, 391/2, 391/3, 391/5, 446/1, 629, 617/1, 912/2, 912/4, 1146/1, 1152/1, 1152/2, 1162/2, 1236/2, and 1262, with respective areas of 0.450, 0.150, 0.100, 0.050, 0.150, 0.130, 0.040, 0.010, 0.110, 0.080, 0.110, 0.050, 0.290, 0.290, 0.160, 0.470, and 1.010 hectares. The total land under Khasra No. 17 is approximately 3.360 hectares, i.e., 8.90 acres. There is also a motor pump installed on this land, and the applicant earns an annual income of ₹3,00,000/- from agriculture. Due to lack of financial hardship, the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned, seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant 5. The applicant filed in his reply, wherein he was accepted only the undisputed facts and denied the remaining main contentions of the non-applicants. He claimed that after marrying him, non-applicant No. 1 separated from him through customary practice and remarried several times, hence she is not his legally wedded wife. He further alleged that non-applicant No. 1 married with Ankalu, son of Medhnath, resident of Schoolpara, Tehsil and P.S. Rudri, District Dhamtari through the “chudi pratha” (customary bangles ritual) and attended several social functions as his wife. Later, she lived with her brother-in-law in Dhamtari and then with other persons in Bilaspur as their wife. Thereafter, she was allegedly enticed applicant No. 2 and was kept her at her current address. In a social meeting, it was decided that the applicant and Kumari Bai would bear the responsibility of maintaining non-applicant No. 2. However, 4 non-applicant No. 2 refused to live with the applicant in village Bagdongari without any valid reason. The applicant further submitted that he does not possess exclusive possession of all the land mentioned. Taking advantage of the family settlement, non- applicant No. 1 misled the non-applicant No. 2 into filing a revenue case before the Naib Tehsildar, Charama, for partition of agricultural land standing in the name of the applicant. The applicant also alleged that non-applicant No. 1 intentionally concealed the fact of her remarriage from the court. No explanation was provided as to why the applicant’s name is absent from non- applicant no. 1’s Aadhaar card or ration card. Earlier, non-applicant No. 2 was issued a disability certificate showing 95% disability, while the current certificate shows 40% disability. No explanation has been given as to why the maintenance application was filed after such a delay, nor was any justification provided for the need for maintenance now. Further, the documents submitted on behalf of the non- applicants do not bear the signature of non-applicant No. 2, and no affidavit has been submitted from her side. Hence, the entire application of the non-applicants is legally defective and liable to be rejected. The applicant also submitted that non-applicant No. 1 owns agricultural land measuring 0.34 hectares in village Gotitola, bearing Khasra No. 243/2, from which she earns income through farming and is capable of maintaining herself and non-applicant No.2. 5 6. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.2/daughter (total 3500/- per month). 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court Kanker Dist. North Bastar Kanker on 02-01-2020 which is registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2020 and they have also filed an application for interim maintenance but the Non-applicant No. 1 only filed affidavit in the support of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Non-applicant No. 1 only filed the Vakaltnama and Registered Address. There is no signature of Non- applicant No.2 in the Vakalatnama and Registered Address and also there is no name of the Non-applicant No. 2 written on the vakalatnama and registered Address. In vakalatnama and registered address, the Non-applicant No. 1 has written her father's name only. There is no reason given by the Non-applicant No. 1 why she has not written her husband's name on the vakalatnama and registered address. On 12-02-2020 the applicant stated in his written statement that the Non-applicant No. 1 was his married wife and also stated that the Non-applicant No. 1, divorced him on the basis of customary way of Chor-Chhuti and after Chor-Chuuti the applicant married with Kumari Bai and the Non-applicant No. 1 also 6 married with the person named Ankalhu and Ankalhu also adopted Non-applicant No. 2 as his daughter. So the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance is applicable for the Non-applicant No. 2. In Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2020 the Non-applicant No. 1 filed her Aadhaar Card stating as widow of Sunderlal and in her evidence Non-applicant No. 1 also admitted that she is receiving pension as widow woman and also receiving free ration from the Panchayat as widower and in her evidence, Non-applicant No. 1 also admitted that she possess 0.34 hectare of agricultural land which she does not disclosed in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. he further submits that the Non-applicants filed an application for maintenance after 35 years of the said Chor-Chhuti custom and Non-applicants has also not given any reason for delay in filing the maintenance application. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that looking to the written statement filed by the applicant, the person named Ankalhu is the necessary party relating to this maintenance case. The learned Family Court Kanker overlooked the written statement related to this person. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in 7 proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.3500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants (i.e. Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2), which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the Family Court, the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal