1 2025:CGHC:27077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 653 of 2024 Hariom Sahu Son of Late Laxmichand Sahu, Aged About 32 Years Permanent Resident of Panch Ghar, Gali No.05, Chandangaon, Pathadhana Road, Chhindwada (M.P.), At Present Resident Of Ubhegaon, Khajari, District Chindwada (M.P.), ... Applicant versus Smt. Bindu Sahu Wife Of Hariom Sahu, Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Diparapara, Durg, Tahsil And Disrtict Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Kaushley, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No.486/2023, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/second wife has been allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:10:41 +0530 2 maintenance to his wife from the date of application. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the respondent/wife was solemnized before Arya Samaj Mandir with the applicant on 07-07-2022 and at that time, the first marriage of applicant was not disclosed and subsequently she came to know that she is the second wife and out of first marriage, the husband has children and thereafter she was subjected to harassment. She came to know that first wife of applicant is Jaishree Sahu and she also harassed her and for the past 07 months, the respondent is residing with her parents at Durg and she was neglected by the husband and she has no source of income. The applicant/husband filed his written statement and denied the adverse submission made by the wife. It was pleaded that the respondent has created forged documents relating to the marriage to avail legal benefits. Further pleaded that he married to Jaishree, his first wife in the year 2015 and out of wedlock, he has two children and they are residing happily and the applicant has burden maintaining her first legally wedded wife and children and also reflects that the applicant and respondent never resided together as husband and wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the learned Family Court without appreciating the facts that the respondent/wife is holding her to be second wife of applicant on the basis of certificate of Arya Samaj, which itself has no validity in the eyes of law. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant denied the marriage with the respondent and has pleased that he is already married to one Jaishree and already have two children and the certificate produced by the non-applicant is forged. He also submits that the applicant has responsibilities of maintain his legally wedded wife and two children and also his parents. Hence, the impugned order dated 3 27.04.2024 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Cr. M.J.C. No.486/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife as interim maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 6. From perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband denied the respondent as his wife, claiming he has already married to his first wife Jayshree. However, the respondent/wife produced a marriage registration certificate, prima facie establishing her as the applicant's wife. The applicant did not give any information to the respondent about his first marriage, and thus, keeping in view all these circumstances, prima facie the respondent has a proper and sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant. Considering the fact that the respondent is educated up to 12th standard, she does not have any source of income of her own, further, the applicant has also submitted information on his affidavit regarding his property and liabilities, according to which the applicant is educated up to 10th standard, he works in the Indian Army, and as stated by him his monthly income is Rs. 4 68,000/-, further, keeping in view the needs of the respondent etc., it is appropriate that at this stage, the respondent should be given a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the applicant from the date of application. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 9. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti