1 2025:CGHC:28592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 776 of 2025 Krishna Kumarn Bharti S/o Late Shivmurti Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chanvaridand, Ward No. 13, Near Sharda Mandir Talab, Thana And Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Durga Suryavanshi W/o Krishna Kumarn Bharti Aged About 27 Years R/o Chhote Jhumarpara, Patna, Thana And Tahsil Patna, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ The applicant, therefore, humbly and most ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 16:17:58 +0530 2 respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call for the record of the Court’s below and the order dated 22/5/25, passed by learned Family Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/24 may kindly be pleased to set aside in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case that the respondent in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2022. It was further stated by the respondent that after eight months of marriage, the applicant started demanding dowry, and when the same was refused, the applicant and his family members started abusing her and were not willing to reside with her. It was further stated by the respondent that as the applicant is employed and earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, she prayed for maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The respondent also stated that the decree under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act was stayed by the Hon’ble Court. 5. The applicant filed a reply denying the contentions of the respondent, stating that by suppressing the fact of her earlier marriage and without obtaining a divorce from her previous husband, the respondent fraudulently married the applicant. Therefore, an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, which was allowed on 16.10.2023. It was further stated by the applicant that he is not employed and is earning his livelihood by doing labour work. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed solely to harass the applicant. In these 3 circumstances, the applicant prayed for the dismissal of the application. 6. The learned Family Court, while allowing the application, granted maintenance in favour of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court completely ignored the fact that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and by suppressing the fact of her earlier marriage, she married the applicant, thus not being entitled to maintenance. He submits that the learned Family Court observed that there was a stay by the Hon’ble Court; hence, the decree was not effective, and therefore, maintenance was granted. The learned Family Court ought to have awaited the decision of the Hon’ble Court before deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court did not properly consider and appreciate the application, reply, and evidence of the parties and, based on presumptions, granted maintenance to the respondent. He further submits that the learned Family Court completely ignored the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and passed an unsustainable order. The learned Family Court entirely disregarded the conduct and attitude of the respondent and granted maintenance to her without considering that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that no legally permissible evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that she was not earlier married, and further, no decree of divorce from her earlier husband was filed by the 4 respondent. The order of the learned Family Court is illegal, contrary to the facts, and against the well-settled law. The learned Family Court did not properly consider, evaluate, and appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the parties before granting and passing the maintenance order. He submits that the learned Family Court did not consider that the applicant is a low-paid employee and is unable to pay such a huge amount of maintenance, especially when he has to support other family members as well. The applicant is challenging the correctness, legality, and propriety of the findings given by the learned Family Court. Further, proper and reasonable opportunities were not granted to the applicant to present his case. Under the circumstances, it is just and proper that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records from the learned Family Court and kindly set aside the impugned order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek