1 2025:CGHC:30226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 418 of 2018 Prabhat Kumar Ram S/o Late J. Victor Ram Aged About 67 Years Rt. Navy Officer (Defense), R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Indra Colony, Tarbahar, (Above Radhika Dairy) P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Anita Ram W/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Indra Colony, Tarbahar, (Above Radhika Dairy) P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Nilam Ram D/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Indra Colony, Tarbahar, (Above Radhika Dairy) P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Pramendra Victor Prabhat Kumar Ram S/o Prabhat Kumar Ram Aged About 11 Years Respondent No. 3 Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Anita Ram, R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Indra Colony, Tarbahar, (Above Radhika Dairy) P. S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondents : None. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.05 14:49:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure A/1), passed by the Court below, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case that the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the learned Family Court, praying for the grant of maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- for herself, Rs. 15,000/- for respondent No. 2, and Rs. 15,000/- for respondent No. 3. The applicant produced various documents along with mobile details to prove that respondent No. 1 is living in adultery, which was proved beyond any doubt before the learned Family Court. 5. This is the second marriage for both the applicant and respondent No. 1, and both were legally divorced from their first marriages before marrying each other. Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and the mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3 The marriage of the applicant with respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20.08.2003 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Maharashtra. Out of the wedlock of the applicant with respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3, namely Pramendra Victor, aged about 10 years, was born. respondent No. 2 was born out of the first marriage of respondent No. 1 with her earlier husband; despite this fact, the applicant has been taking care of all the respondents and providing proper educational opportunities to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The applicant also purchased agricultural land for the respondents and invested in several MIS, NSC, and insurance policies for their benefit, amounting to approximately Rs. 8,82,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-, which were subsequently withdrawn and misused by respondent No. 1. All these facts have been specifically admitted by respondent No. 1 in her statement before the Court. 6. Due to the continuous physical assaults, ill-treatment, and harassment by Respondent No. 1, the applicant has been subjected to deep mental agony and physical torture and has also been deprived of access to his children. The character of respondent No. 1, as she is living in adultery, is causing social defamation to the applicant, forcing him to live in grief and immense distress. That all three respondents are living in the house of the applicant, and the applicant is taking care of all of them. Despite this, the Family Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance, even though respondent No. 2 is an adult, and an application for her maintenance ought to have been filed by her separately and not through her mother, i.e., respondent No. 1. 4 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law as well as on facts. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material evidence available on record. The order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without the application of mind. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that all three respondents are residing in the house of the applicant, and the applicant has been taking care of all of them. Despite this, the Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance, although respondent No. 2 is an adult, and an application for her maintenance ought to have been filed separately by her and not through her mother, i.e., respondent No. 1. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that due to continuous physical assaults, ill-treatment, and harassment by respondent No. 1, the applicant is undergoing deep mental agony and physical torture, and he has also been deprived of access to his children. The character of respondent No. 1, who is living in adultery, is causing social defamation to the applicant, forcing him to live with grief and immense distress. He also submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant has purchased agricultural land for the respondents and has also purchased several MIS, NSC, and insurance policies for their benefit, amounting to approximately Rs. 8,82,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-, which were subsequently withdrawn and misused by respondent No. 1. This shows that the applicant has been taking care of all the respondents, despite which the Family Court 5 awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance, which may be misused by respondent No. 1 in her adulterous lifestyle, subsequently resulting in the ruin of the children. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek