1 2025:CGHC:31319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 450 of 2020 1. Kera Bai W/o Purushottam Ajay Satnami Aged About 25 Years R/o Kekrabhat, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Manjeet Kumar S/o Purushottam Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kera Bai Wife of Puroshotam Satnami. R/o Kekrabhat, P.S. And Tahsil Dabhara, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Purushottam Ajay S/o Resham Lal Ajay Aged About 28 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kushmul, Chowki Faguram, P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants on I.A. No. 01 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.10 10:47:13 +0530 2 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, I am of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I. A. No. 01 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 01 day in filing the revision is condoned. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure A-1) and may kindly be pleased to award suitable maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent. The admitted facts of the case are that a counseling session was conducted by the Family Court between applicant No.1 and the respondent. It is further an admitted fact that applicant No.1 is the wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is the son of the respondent. In the present case, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., wherein it was mentioned that in the year 2011, the respondent solemnized marriage with applicant No.1 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It was further pleaded by the applicants that after one month of marriage, the parents of the respondent demanded a motorcycle as dowry and started torturing applicant No.1 physically and mentally. After two years of marriage, 3 applicant No.2 was born, but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent and his parents, and they eventually ousted the applicants from the matrimonial home. After some time, the respondent went to another place to earn his livelihood, and when he returned, a panchayat meeting was conducted in the village, wherein a compromise was reached, and the applicants were sent back to the matrimonial home. However, the respondent again started torturing them under the influence of liquor and demanded a motorcycle as dowry. Subsequently, he went to another place for work, and therefore, the applicant lodged a report in the year 2014. Due to the above circumstances, the applicants filed the application seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- each) from the respondent. After the filing of the application, the respondent admitted that applicant No.2 is his son but denied the other pleadings made by applicant No.1. 5. Learned Family Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, passed the impugned order dated 12-12-2019 (Annexure A-1), whereby it rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants on the ground that applicant No.1 had left her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason or cause. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 12-12-2019 (Annexure A-1) is perverse and has been passed without the application of judicial mind, and thus, it deserves to be quashed. The finding of learned Family Court holding that the wife is residing separately without sufficient reason is without evidence and 4 has been made without properly appreciating the documents available on record. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, as per the order sheet dated 11-03-2019, the respondent himself admitted that he was willing to solemnize a second marriage, and applicant No.1 specifically stated in her application as well as in her statement that the respondent has a second wife. This is a sufficient reason for applicant No.1 to live separately from the respondent, which was not appreciated by the Family Court. He further submits that learned Family Court wrongly rejected the application filed by the applicants, even though it is an admitted fact that applicant No.2 is a minor child, aged five years, and the applicants have no means of livelihood. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is working as a labourer and also undertakes construction work as a mason, earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, and therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the applicants. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicant No.2 is the minor child residing with his mother, and without assigning sufficient reasons, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rejected the application under 5 Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants, observing that applicant No.1 had left her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason or cause. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek