1 2025:CGHC:24964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 288 of 2017 Sher Singh S/o Jaychand Aged About 60 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Tavera, Police Station And Tahsil Gunderdehi , District Balod, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Quarter No. 2 D Type, Hospital Sector, Behind Football Ground, Dalli Rajhara, Post And Police Station Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus Smt. Malti Bai W/o Sher Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kosmi, Post Bhimkanhar, Police Station And Tahsil Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Link/Family Court, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:12 +0530 2 No.96/2015, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been allowed and it is directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,500/- per months to the respondent as maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, mentioning therein that she was married with the applicant in the year 1992 and from their wedlock she has given birth to a child who died immediately. It has further been stated that after some time applicant started ill-treating her and also ousted her. The applicant in view of the pleadings made in the application had filed an application for grant of maintenance after lapse of long time of 20 years and also had suppressed the correct facts. She had prayed for Rs. 15,000/- per month towards the maintenance for her. The applicant submitted reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and had denied all the adverse allegations made therein and further stated that on the date of the alleged marriage, applicant's first wife was already alive and the divorce proceeding was pending before the Court. It has further been clearly stated that the respondent had resided only for 7-8 days alongwith him and thereafter she went away to her parents house and thereafter did not return. The learned Family Court on the basis of the pleadings made by the respective parties had directed them to produce their evidence in support of their pleadings. Both the parties have given evidence in their support, but the learned trial Court without considering the entire material and evidence available on record and without scrutinizing the evidence of the respondent minutely had wrongly awarded an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards maintenance. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the learned Family 3 Court also failed to consider that during the said period as stated by the respondent/wife, she only resided for 7-8 days in the company of the applicant and by that itself the respondent could not get the status of wife and can got entitlement for maintenance. The learned Family Court also failed to consider the pleadings and the evidence of the respondent in its entirety as from her own version she had resided only for a short period of few days with the applicant and therefore she cannot claim maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court committed error in not considering that it is the respondent herself who left the company of the applicant with her own will without any reason and therefore she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance as claimed by her. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the requirement under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for becoming entitlement for the maintenance is that the applicant should be legally wedded wife which is lacking in this case. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 5. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that it is proved on the basis of the unrefutable, supported and reliable evidence of the respondent/wife that the respondent is the wife of the applicant and the respondent is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons and is not capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, it is worth concluding that the applicant is capable of earning income and maintaining the respondent. In any case, being the husband of the respondent, it is his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife, the respondent according to his status. 4 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti