1 2025:CGHC:36525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 736 of 2023 Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Bhesram Chandrakar, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Sikshakarmi Grad-Iii Primary School Hathibahara, R/o Village Devri, Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ward No. 06, Lalpur Bagbahara, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ritu Chandrakar D/o Naresh Chandrakar, W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Kashish Chandrakar, D/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, Student Class 10th Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritu Chandrakar, W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, R/o Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Harshit Chandrakar, D/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, Aged About 13 Years Student Class 8th R/o Village Mudmar, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ritu Chandrakar, W/o Rajkumar Chandrakar, R/o Mudmar, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.02/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month (each) to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on June 30, 2005, according to Hindu customs. The applicant, a former police department employee, later joined the education department as a Shiksha Karmi. However, he started harassing the respondent No.1, accusing her of having an illicit relationship with Rajesh Patel, a resident of Bagbahara. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue, the applicant's behavior didn't change. On August 29, 2020, the applicant threw the respondent No.1 out of his house along with their children, and on September 5, 2020, he filed a false report against her. The respondent then 3 started living in a rented house in Bagbahara with her children. Later, a meeting was held in Ram Temple, Mahasamund, where the applicant and the respondent were directed to live together for six months. The respondent joined the applicant, but he continued to harass her, making false accusations and threatening to poison her. In August 2021, the respondent left her husband's house and went to her parents' home. Despite further attempts at reconciliation, the applicant refused to take her back and even threatened to kill her if she tried to return. The applicant further alleged that the applicant had established an illicit relationship with another woman, Sangeeta Chandrakar, and had married her in October 2021, without divorcing the respondent. The respondent filed a written report with the police station on December 16, 2021. The applicant is working as a Shiksha Karmi and earns a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-. He also owns agricultural land in Devri, earning an annual income of Rs. 2 lakhs. The respondent’s children are studying in school, and she is facing difficulties in their upbringing. Therefore, she requested maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for each child. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court has failed to appreciate that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on June 30, 2005. Prior to the marriage, the applicant was serving in the police department, and subsequently, he became a Shikshakarmi. Further, due to the applicant’s work, which required him to be away from home, a relationship developed between the respondent No. 1 and one Rajesh Patel. He further submits that the learned Court has failed to appreciate that on August 4, 2019, respondent No. 1 abandoned her children and eloped with Rajesh Patel, prompting the applicant to file a police report. The police intervened, and she returned home with the applicant. However, on August 29, 2020, she repeated the same behavior, leaving her children to be with Rajesh Patel again. Despite filing a police report, no action was taken. The applicant then approached the Chandranahu Kurmi Samaj, which convened a meeting and instructed respondent No. 1 to live with the applicant for six months. Despite this, there was no change in her behavior, and she continued her relationship with Rajesh Patel. He also submits that the learned Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant came to know about the illicit relationship of the respondent no. 1 with Rajesh Patel, while he was returning back from his school, then he saw the respondent No. 1 going with the Rajesh Patel, after which the applicant started keeping an eye on the respondent No. 1 from where he came to know that respondent No.1 used to talk with Rajesh Patel and has also 5 received gifts from him, during this applicant got some obscene photographs from the Wardrobe of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month (each) to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing that it is clear that the applicant used to harass and physically abuse the respondent No. 1, doubting her character and leveling allegations against her. Furthermore, the applicant married Sangeeta Chandrakar and kept her as his wife without dissolving his marriage with the respondent No. 1. Moreover, the applicant accused the respondent No. 1 of having married Rajesh Patel and living in an adulterous relationship with him. However, he failed to prove that the applicant Ritu Chandrakar had married Rajesh Patel at an Arya Samaj temple or that she was living in an adulterous relationship with him, which shows that the respondent has a reasonable and sufficient cause to live separately from the applicant and she is unable to maintain herself and her children, therefore, the Family Court concluded 6 that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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 Akhil