1 2025:CGHC:24932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 490 of 2011 Bhagwat Singh, aged about 35 years S/o Chamru Singh, R/o Village Sodhar, Police Station Jarhagaon, Tahsil-Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Applicant versus 1. Sonbai W/o Bhagwatsingh, aged about 33 years, R/o. Village Sodhar, Present address Charbhata, Station Mungeli, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Ku. Sandhya Kumari, D/o Bhagwat Singh, aged about 6 years, minor through their natural guardian mother Sonbai, R/o. Village Sodhar, Present address Charbhata, Station Mungeli, Bilaspur (CG). 3. Ku. Seema Kumari D/o Bhagwat Singh, aged about 3 years, minor through their natural guardian mother Sonbai, R/o. Village Sodhar, Present address Charbhata, Station Mungeli, Bilaspur (CG). ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is filed being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) arising out of the order dated 31.08.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 30/2009, whereby the learned trial Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the revisional Court partly allowed the revision, filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No.2 & 3/children. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent is second wife of the applicant and the respondents No.2 and 3 are daughters born out of wedlock of the applicant and respondent No.1 and without any sufficient reason the respondent No.1 is living separately from the applicant, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 27.12.2007, claiming the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to herself and Rs. 2000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3. The trial Court has issued notice to the applicant in the light of application and the applicant appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement, denying the averment made in the application. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 is living separately from him without sufficient cause, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant and the applicant is ready to keep her as his wife. It is also alleged that first wife of the 3 applicant namely, Smt. Sakun Bai is alive and during life time of Sakum Bai, Chudi marriage is performed with respondent No.1 Sonbai, therefore, she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned trial Court has recorded evidence and held that the respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance and awarded Rs. 500/- maintenance per month to respondent No.2 and 3. The respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.08.2009 filed the revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli for enhancement of maintenance amount to respondent No.2 and 3 and for grant of maintenance to respondent No.1 on the ground that the applicant has performed marriage with her with permission of Smt. Sakun Bai, therefore, she got status as wife and also entitled for maintenance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence available on record, partly allowed the revision and directed that the respondent No.1 is also entitled for maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month and dismissed the application for enhancement of non-applicants No. 2 and 3. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned revisional Court has committed an error in law in allowing the revision in part and holding that respondent No.1 is also entitled for maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month, though she is not legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in 4 allowing the application and directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 from the date of application. Learned revisional Court has committed an error in quashing the order passed by the trial Court, though the order of the trial Court is based on evidence available on record and finding recorded by the trial Court is not perverse, therefore, there is no ground to reverse the order of the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has partly allowed the revision filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No.2 & 3/children, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2011, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar