1 2025:CGHC:28616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 653 of 2019 1 - Smt. Beena Bramha W/o Shri Sanjay Bramha Aged About 25 Years R/o Durgapara, Santoshi Nagar, Tikrapara, Post Office - Raipur, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rishi Kumar Bramha S/o Shri Sanjay Bramha Aged About 08 Months, Minor On Behalf Of Through His Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Applicant No. 1 Smt. Beena Bramha, R/o Durgapara, Santoshi Nagar, Tikrapara, Post Office - Raipur, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sanjay Bramha S/o Devende Nath Bramha Aged About 30 Years R/o Block No.-7, Mana Camp, Near Purana Market, Mana Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Mana, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan K. Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 759/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.2 only. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicants and respondent was solemnized on 22/04/2015 and out of their wed lock, male child is Rishi Kumar Bramha who is residing with the applicant No. 1. The respondent has ill-treated/harassed for the domestic work and committed marpit with the applicant No. 1 due to this the applicant No. 1 frustrated and difficult to live together with the respondent, left her husband house with her child. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application for maintenance before the Second Additional Principal Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as Family Court) which has been registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 759/2016 and decided on 19/02/2019 whereby the application of maintenance of the applicant no. I has been rejected on the ground that the applicant No. I has not taken the divorce from the first husband and marriage was solemnized with the respondent due to which the application of the applicant No. 1 is rejected and the learned 3 Family Court has partly allowed the application of applicant No. 2 and awarded the maintenance sum of Rs. 4,000/- because the applicant No. 2 is legitimate child of the respondent who is born with the wedlock of the applicant No. 1 and respondent. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case material available on record. The learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant No. 1 for maintenance amount against the respondent i.e. Rs. 15,000/- which is not justified and reasonable cause because the applicant No. 1 who is the married wife of the respondent which is admitted fact of the case and she is residing separately from her husband being sufficient and reasonable cause because the respondent husband of the applicant No. 1 harassed/ill-treated his wife (applicant No.1) on account of domestic work and taunted the loose character. Further the respondent husband of the applicant No. 1 always ill-treated his wife due to which the applicant No. 1 had gone to her parental house on account of cruelty and ill-treatment of her husband. The learned Family Court failed to see this important aspect of the case. 4 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.2 and rejected the application of the applicant No.1 on the ground that the applicant No.1 has married the respondent without getting divorce from her pervious husband, in such a situation, the marriage being void, the applicant No.1. is not entitled for grant of maintenance and further, considering the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- to the applicant No.2, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal