1 2025:CGHC:5643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 905 of 2019 • Vijay Kumar S/o Late Awadh Ram Banjare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bhilaigarh District Balouda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Padmani W/o Vijay Kumar Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Banshilal, S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station Sarsiwa Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., 2. Kumari Desency D/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 13 Years Minor, Represented Through The Respondent No, 1, Mother. R/o C/o Banshilal, S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station Sarsiwa Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., 3. Kumari Sakshi D/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 12 Years Minor, Represented Through The Respondent No, 1, Mother. R/o C/o Banshilal, S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station Sarsiwa Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balouda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., 4. Sapna, W/o Ranjit Kumar Aged About 20 Years D/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Dhanganwa (Malhar) Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.03 17:47:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balouda Bazar in Criminal Revision No.64/2015, arising out of the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balouda Bazar in Criminal Case No. 67/2013. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar stating that the marriage between the present petitioner and the respondent No.1 had taken place on 15.05.1997 as per the Hindu custom and tradition and out of their wedlock they have been blessed by three children. It is further alleged that after the lapse of considerable time of marriage, suddenly the behavior of the present applicant has changed towards the non-applicant No.1, therefore, she started to reside separately. The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class after perusal the pleading of the parties and scrutinized the evidence has granted the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicants. Against that, the petitioner/husband filed a criminal revision before the learned Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court has reduced the amount of maintenance as Rs.3000/- per month instead of Rs.5000/-. Against the said order, the respondents have filed a Criminal Misc. Petition before this Court, which is bearing CRMP No.2000/2018. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that learned trial Court as well as revisional Court have acted with material 3 anomalies and illegality of great magnitude in passing the impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside by this Court. He further submits that both the Courts have not appreciated that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Sapna who was respondent No.2 before the Revisional Court is married, therefore, she does not have any right to claim the maintenance from her father. The another daughter of the petitioner, namely late Sadhna who was respondent No.3 before the Revisional Court has died on 19.12.218, therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot claim maintenance for her. The learned Courts have not appreciated that the tie of marriage between both the parties has been dissolved by the competent Court vide order dated 12.12.2015 on the ground of mutual consent. Both the Courts have not appreciated that the present petition do not have any sufÏcient means to pay the huge amount of maintenance because he has a small shop of cycle repairing and his earning is very low. Moreover, the respondent No.1 herself admitted that she is working as Anganbadi worker at Village Mohtara and she has performed another marriage. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submits the respondent No.1/wife has also filed a petition bearing CRMP No.2000/2018 for enhancement of maintenance amount. He further submits that the petitioner husband owns a provision shop, cycle store and also having agriculture land and, thus, he has sufficient source of income. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the 4 order/judgment passed by the revisional Court, it transpires that respondent No.1 Padmani Banjare and petitioner Vijay Kumar Banjare were married on May 15, 1997, and have five daughters together. The petitioner/husband and his witnesses did not mention that Padmani Banjare's has performed marriage to anyone else, only stating that she worked as an Anganwadi worker in Gram Mohatra. However, they admitted that the petitioner Vijay Kumar Banjare had married another woman. In this situation, since petitioner Vijay Kumar Banjare has married another woman without obtaining a lawful divorce from the respondent No.1, he is still responsible for maintaining his children. Although the respondent No.1/wife is employed as an Anganwadi worker, the petitioner/husband cannot escape from his responsibility to maintain his children. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned revisional Court, I am of the view that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti