1 2025:CGHC:32948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 550 of 2022 1. Krashani Bai W/o Kumardhawaj Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Dholiya, Post - Jhal, Tahsil, P.S. and District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Gajju S/o Kumardhawaj Sahu, Aged About 08 Days, Represented Through - Natural Guardian Mother - Krashani Bai Sahu, W/o Kumardhawaj Sahu, R/o Village - Dholiya, Post - Jhal, Tahsil, P.S. and District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Kumardhawaj S/o Dhanna Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Martara, Chowki - Khandsara, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Hemant Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, (C.G.) in M.J.C No.49/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 20:44:46 +0530 2 rejected the application with respect to applicant No.2/son. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and respondent was solemnized according to Hindu customs on 11.05. 2011. Applicant No. 1 resided with her husband at their home for less than 34 months before leaving the respondent's company. The couple had a male child, applicant No. 2, who was born at the applicant No. 1's parental home. Due to false allegations and cruelty by the respondent, the applicant No.1 left her husband's house and gave birth to applicant No. 2 at her parental home. However, the respondent showed no interest in seeing his son. The respondent’s attitude towards taking his wife back was hostile. A social meeting was called at the applicant's instance, and after two rounds of arguments, a Rajinama (settlement) was executed under certain conditions. The respondent complied with the conditions of the Rajinama until December 2021 but failed to fulfill the condition of giving 0.60 hectares of land to applicant No. 2. Despite this, the respondent filed a reply with the learned Family Court at Bemetara, denying all allegations related to maintenance. The respondent has since remarried and has four children, but has failed to maintain the present applicants, despite there being no legal divorce. Therefore, applicant No. 1 remains his legally wedded wife. The respondent owns approximately 12 acres of land and is capable of maintaining his wife, whom he has abandoned in society. In response to the applicant's situation, the respondent wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court at Bemetara, which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 49/2021. The learned Family Court allowed the application and granted Rs. 1,000 per month in maintenance to applicant No. 1 (wife) but did not grant any maintenance to applicant No. 2 (son) vide order dated February 15, 2022. The applicants have 3 preferred this revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount and grant of maintenance to applicant No. 2, as the learned Family Court did not award any maintenance to the son despite allowing the application with sufficient legal reasoning. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and contrary to settled legal propositions, particularly with regard to granting maintenance to applicant No. 2. The second part of the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and flawed. It is humbly submitted that the learned Family Court entertained the application of the applicant/wife and granted Rs. 1,000 per month, which is on the lower side, and failed to grant any sum to applicant No. 2, which ought to have been granted. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that there was a mutual divorce between the parties, which took place during social meetings and was never denied by applicant No. 1/wife. Despite this, the Court seemed to have been swayed by sympathy for the wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000, which deserves to be quashed. The order should be set aside, and maintenance should be granted to the applicants. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No.1/wife is living separately from the respondent for sufficient reasons. Further, the respondent has given agricultural land for the maintenance of applicant No. 02/son, in which he can earn income by farming through applicant No.1, hence applicant No.2 is not entitled to receive maintenance amount. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by 4 this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein 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 present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti