1 2025:CGHC:27074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 857 of 2024 Shankar Lal Baghel S/o Shri Jatilal Baghel Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Palari, Tahsil Guru, District Balod Chhattisgarh. Current R/o Near Thakur Pan Center, Water Tank, Ward No. 1, Hatkeshar Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil and District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Meenalal Baghel W/o Shankar Lal Baghel Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Gaoura Chaora, Lalbagicha Ward, Tehsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2. Sidharth Lal Baghel S/o Shankar Lal Baghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Gaoura Chaora, Lalbagicha Ward, Tehsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3. Swarna Baghel D/o Shankar Lal Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Gaoura Chaora, Lalbagicha Ward, Tehsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, 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 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:11:47 +0530 2 (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.147/2022, whereby the Family Court has upheld the order dated 04.03.2020 filed by the respondent herein. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the order passed by the Family Court Judge, Dhamtari dated 04.03.2020, it was held that the applicant/husband is liable to pay maintenance to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 where respondent No. 1/wife was to get Rs.4000/- per month, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were to get Rs. 2,500/- each per month till they attain the age of majority. The respondent No.1/wife then preferred an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C (now 144(3) of BNSS) for the non- payment of maintenance from 04.06.2021 to 04.06.2022 i.e. for 12 months, reckoning the amount upto total of Rs. 1,08,000/- before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari. Since 2016, the respondent No.1/wife has been living with one Krishna Sagarvanshi as husband and wife where she is in no need to avail the benefits of the maintenance. Moreover, the applicant had also filed an application under section 125(5) of Cr.P.C. (now 144 (5) of BNSS) against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court as mentioned above, the applicant herein preferred this revision as his documents were not considered by the Family Court and the vague averments were made by respondent No.1 and had obtained the order in her favour. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the respondent No.1/ wife wants to extorts money from the applicant by blackmailing and wants to harass the present applicant. He further submits that since 2016 to up until now the respondent No.1 has been living with one Krishna Sagarvanshi as husband and wife, where she is in no need to avail the benefits of the maintenance. He also submits that respondent No. 2 and 3 3 have attained the age of majority now, therefore, the order dated 04.03.2020 and 08.05.2024 cannot be sustainable against major children. He later submits that respondent No. 1/wife had made false allegation against the present applicant, she herself left the house of applicant and the applicant is ready to take her with him. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 5. From perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife along with her two children is living separately from the applicant/husband due to reasonable reasons. In such circumstances, the applicant is socially and legally responsible to maintain the respondents, and on the basis of it being appropriate to provide maintenance amount. Considering the maintenance needs of the respondents, education, medical care, current inflation level and social status of both the parties, it appears just to provide maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 - Meenalal Baghel from the date of order and Rs. 2,500-2,500/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 till they attain adulthood from the date of order 04.03.2020. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti