1 2025:CGHC:38479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 710 of 2025 Shani Garhewal S/o Soupat Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mohra, Tehsil Seepat, District - Bilaspur, At Present R/o Atal Awas Bahtarai, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pratima Garhewal W/o Shri Shani Garhewal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Anchal D/o Shani Garhewal Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal, W/o Shri Shani Garhewal, Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Veera Garhewal S/o Shani Garhewal Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal, W/o Shri Shani Garhewal, Caster Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vinay Garhewal S/o Shani Garhewal Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Garhewal, Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Village Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 86/2021, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife, having solemnised their marriage in the year 2005. Out of the said wedlock, three children were born, namely Anchal Garhewal, Veera Garhewal and Vinay Garhewal (Aged about 6 years, 4 years and 2 years, respectively). The parties had resided together as husband and wife for approximately 10 years before disputes arose between them. Subsequently, the non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home without any justifiable rhymes and reasons and started residing separately in her maternal home along with the children. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC sought monthly maintenance for herself and her children. The same was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 86/2021 before the Learned Family Court at Bilaspur. 3. During the pendency of the said proceedings, an interim maintenance order was passed against the applicant. Due to financial hardship and personal circumstances, the applicant could 3 not pay the interim maintenance amount within the stipulated time. Owing to this, the learned Family Court barred the applicant from participating him in the proceedings and proceeded to pass an order dated 30.05.2022 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The Family Court allowed the application filed by the non-applicants, granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3400/- per month to the respondents. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached this Hon'ble Court in CR.R No. 757 of 2022, and vide order dated 08.04.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, holding that denial of the right to cross- examination amounts to denial of fair trial and natural justice. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court further directed that, the learned Family Court shall provide an opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the non-applicant's witnesses. The applicant shall not take unnecessary adjournments during the said cross- examination. The case shall be concluded and fresh order passed within three months from receipt of the order. In compliance with the directions of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the matter was again taken up for hearing before the Family Court, and cross-examination of parties were conducted. But, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order on 27.05.2025 (Annexure A/1) directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3800/- (Three Thousand Eight Hundred Only) per month to the non-applicants. (Rs. 1100/- per month to the non- 4 applicant No.1 and Rs. 900/- per month each to the non-applicant No. 2 to 4 towards maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of the proceedings, certain statements were made by the applicant allegedly admitting to a second marriage, but it is respectfully submitted that those statements were made under coercion by police authorities and due to lack of legal knowledge and illiteracy. The applicant could not follow the questions raised by the counsellor and was scared and confused during the interrogation. He further submits that such coerced and confused admission cannot be the sole basis to deny him relief or to discredit his intention to resume matrimonial life. However, it is well within the knowledge of the non-applicant No.1 that the applicant has not conducted any subsequent marriage till date. The applicant is deeply desirous of reconciling with his wife and continuing the marital relationship. He has repeatedly expressed his willingness to welcome the non-applicants back to the matrimonial home. But, it is evident from record that the non-applicant No.1 herself has refused to reside with the applicant. He further submits that applicant has consistently expressed his willingness to reconcile and bring the non-applicants back to her matrimonial home, which is an important factor under Section 125 CrPC while determining neglect and desertion, whereas the non-applicant No.1 has categorically stated in para 20 of her cross-examination that she does not wish to live with the applicant without assigning any reason. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without properly assessing 5 applicant's present financial capacity, which has significantly deteriorated and without proper enquiry into his income. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 15000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 3400/- per month as maintenance to the Non-applicants. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, the the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No. 757 of 2022 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2022 and after hearing the parties, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 08.04.2025 whereby quash/set-aside the order dated 30.05.2022 as passed by the learned Family Court. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the same, the non-applicants again preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15000/- and after heard both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 27.05.2025, wherein directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 1100/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 900/- each to the non-applicant No.2 to 4 as 6 maintenance (Total 3800/- per month) and while passing the said order, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.3800/- per month as maintenance to the non- applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal