1 2025:CGHC:34641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 394 of 2024 Sagar Kumar Lahre S/o Shri Dilip Kumar Lahre Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram- Lofandi, Police Station- Koni, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Rina Sarkar @ Riya Sarkar W/o Sagar Kumar Lahre Aged About 27 Years R/o Mangla Basti, Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Pragati Pandey, holding brief of Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.413/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the applicant and directed to pay Rs.3000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant was married to the respondent on 11.04.2018 in Bilaspur according to Hindu customs. After marriage, the applicant and his family members used to harass the respondent physically and mentally by abusing and beating her in the name of dowry. The applicant is suspicious and a man of a wealthy profession. He made the respondent work like a servant. The applicant doubted the character of the respondent and abandoned her after abusing and beating her two and a half years ago. Since then the respondent is staying at her maternal home. The respondent has no source of income meanwhile the applicant works as a lab technician and earns Rs. 40,000 per month. Therefore, the respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties, partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month, hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and deserves to be set- aside. The learned trial Court has erred in law and facts both while passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set- aside. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that the marriage 3 between present applicant and respondent is not valid therefore, the applicant has no liability for maintaining the respondent. The respondent was already married to the one Deepak Sarkar, who was her first husband from whom she had one daughter named Diya Sarkar. The respondent concealed this fact and married with the present applicant. The respondent after leaving Deepak Sarkar her first husband, married with another person named Nitin Srivastava who died on 11.02.2017. A merg intimation was registered on 12.02.2017 in Police Station - Civil Lines, Bilaspur, about the death of Nitin Srivastava, in which the respondent gave the statement that she was married with Nitin Srivastava in temple situated in Talagaon. She was already married with Deepak Sarkar and then she illegally married with Nitin Srivastava and later she illegally married with the present applicant. It is glaring that the respondent is a fraud woman and she extorts money from innocent men by luring them into her love trap and accusing them of physical exploitation, therefore, the order dated 21.09.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.3000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and has sufficient reason to stay separately from the applicant/husband. Further, applicant works in the hospital as an X-ray technician, staff with ambulance patients and dresser, from which he earns Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand rupees) per month and he has his own agricultural land in village Lofandi from which he earns about Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees) per year. Thus the maintenance granted to the respondent cannot be said to be on a higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal