1 2025:CGHC:27435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 472 of 2018 1. Bintee Bai W/o Lav Chandrawanshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhareli, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, Present Address House of Shri Anju Chandrawanshi, Village Dhobghatti, Police Station Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2. Roshan Kumhar S/o Lav Chandrawanshi Aged About 9 Years , student Class – 4th, Minor, Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Bintee Bai, W/o Lav Chandrawanshi, R/o Village Bhareli, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, Present Address House of Shri Anju Chandrawanshi, Village Dhobghatti, Police Station Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Lav Chandrawanshi Aged About 35 Years Occupation Agricultural, Work And Rajmistri, R/o Village Bhareli, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the resondent, seeking maintenance. It was claimed that applicant no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1 and the respondent. The said application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the applicants before the learned Family Court, stating inter alia that the marriage between applicant no. 1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2007. It was submitted that the first wife of the respondent had died under suspicious 3 circumstances, and consequently, the respondent and his family members were prosecuted in that regard. It was further stated that applicant no. 1 entered into a matrimonial relationship with the respondent through a ritual known as “Chudi Vivah”. Thereafter, she began residing with the respondent and his children from his previous marriage. However, the respondent, under the influence and instruction of his mother Radha Bai, began quarreling with and assaulting applicant no. 1. It was also stated that when applicant no. 1 conceived, the respondent pressured her to abort the child. Upon her refusal, she was subjected to cruelty, including attempts by the respondent to forcefully terminate the pregnancy. However, due to the intervention of one Holiram, applicant no. 1 was able to give birth to a child on 04.09.2008—applicant no. 2. It was further submitted that both applicants were continuously subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his mother. They were denied medical care and treatment, and were ultimately thrown out of the matrimonial home. The applicants are now residing at the parental home of applicant no. 1 located in Village – Dhobghatti. The applicant no. 1 is unable to maintain herself, while the respondent is a person having sufficient means. Therefore, he is liable to maintain both applicants. A prayer was made for granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent, upon being served with notice, appeared before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.) and filed a written reply denying the contents of the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He stated that applicant no. 1 had entered into a love 4 affair with him and, on account of their relationship, a child was born. It was further submitted that there was no formal marriage between them, and hence applicant no. 1 is not his legally wedded wife. 4. The respondent also denied all allegations of harassment and torture and stated that applicant no. 1 lived with him only for a brief period, and thereafter went back to her parental home where she currently resides. He further claimed that he owns no agricultural land and survives solely through manual labour. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Family Court framed as many as five issues for adjudication. The statements of both parties were recorded, documentary evidence submitted by both sides was examined, and arguments were duly heard. 6. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application. The claim for maintenance of applicant no. 1 was dismissed on the ground that she failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. However, maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month was granted to applicant no. 2 along with Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.), is bad in law, illegal, 5 perverse, and contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, it deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in holding that the present applicant no. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, despite her clear statement that after the death of the respondent’s wife, she married him and had been leading a happily married life with him for the past three years. Therefore, the learned Court committed a grave error, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the application filed by the applicants in the correct perspective. The Court also erred in evaluating the facts brought forth by the applicant. The learned Family Court erred in its determination of facts and settled the issue of alimony based on incorrect presumptions and misinterpretation of evidence, rendering the findings perverse and bad in law. Therefore, the order requires modification by enhancing the maintenance allowance to Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of applicant no. 2. Further, maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month should also be granted to applicant no. 1, as both applicants are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent owns 12 acres of agricultural land (jointly with his father), an additional 2 acres of land in the name of his son, and earns approximately Rs. 500/- per day through work. Hence, he is fully capable of providing maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court also erred in awarding an unreasonably low amount towards litigation expenses. The same deserves to be modified and enhanced by this Hon’ble Court. 6 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants in the present revision petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, had observed that it was found that the applicant no. 1, Vinati Bai, was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Thus, the applicants were only partially successful in proving their application. Accordingly, the claim for maintenance on behalf of applicant no. 1 was rejected. However, applicant no. 2, Roshan, was found entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Consequently, keeping in view the standard of living of both parties, the earning capacity of the respondent, and the number of his dependents, the following order was passed: i. The application for grant of maintenance to applicant no. 1 was dismissed. ii. The respondent was directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month to applicant no. 2, Roshan, from the date of the order, until he attains majority. The said maintenance amount was to be received by applicant no. 1, Vinati Bai, the mother and natural guardian of applicant no. 2. iii. The cost of the proceedings was fixed at Rs. 500/- 7 (Rupees Five Hundred only). Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) is just and proper. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the applicant No. 02 cannot be said to be shockingly on lower side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek