1 2025:CGHC:24929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 562 of 2016 Raj Kumar Mahant S/o S/o Shri Suresh Das Mahant Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Shri S.P. Masech, F.R. Quarter No. 03, Forest Colony Nehru Chowk, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, P.S. City Centre, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sirmati Mahant W/o Shri Raj Kumar Mahant Aged About 28 Years R/o Ram Nagar Saimundi, Post Gopalpur, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kratika Mahant Minor Aged About 4 Years Through Mother Smt. Sirmati Mahant, R/o Ram Nagar Saimundi, Post Gopalpur, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 214/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 16.07.2010, and the both the parties were residing at Laulunga. District – Raigarh (C.G.). But the respondent No.1 without the any rhyme and reason refused to reside with the applicant herein, and left him. The respondent No. 1 conceived a child out of the wedlock, but she deliberately went to her maternal home along with her father at Ramnagar, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). The respondent No.1 gave birth to a girl child (respondent No.2) on 17.07.2011, but when the present applicant went to bring the respondents to the matrimonial home, the parents of the respondent No.1 insulted the applicant in foul language and refused to send the respondents. The respondent No.1 also without any justified reasons refused to come along with the applicant herein and threatened the applicant to lodge a false FIR against him under section 498A, and cruelty etc. Since then the respondent No.1 has not come back to the matrimonial house. Despite the repeatedly efforts made by the applicant to bring the respondent, but she deliberately refused to reside with him. The applicant apprehended by the weats of the respondent No.1 and her parents, made a detailed complaint on 30.12.2011 before the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur. District- Raigarh (C.G.), and on 3 02.01.2011, the applicant called/arranged a community (Samazik) meeting for peaceful reconciliation between the parties, but then also the respondent No.1 and her parents shown an arbitrary attitude and the respondent No.1 refused to reside with the applicant herein. The respondent No.1 has left the applicant herein for without any justified reasons, and refused to reside with him. The applicant herein aggrieved by the ill-treatment and mental cruelty caused by the respondent, filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce, before the Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) registered as Civil Case No. F-48A/2013, (Raj Kumar Mahant vs. Smt. Sirmati Mahant). The respondent No.1 merely appeared once before the learned Family Court on 25.06.2014 and thereafter deliberately did not appear before the Court, which shows that the respondent No.1 was least bothered to contest the matter. Thus, the learned Family Court vide its order dated 21.08.2014 granted the decree of divorce to the applicant herein. The applicant after the decree of divorce, remarried to Snehalata Mahant on 12.06.2015, and is living with his life peacefully. A girl child has been born out of the second marriage of the applicant herein on 10.05.2016, the respondent No.1, with a malafide intention to harass the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC which was instituted on 06.08.2015, registered as M.J.C. No. 214/2015, before the Learned Family Court (Camp) Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.). i.e., immediately after the marriage of the applicant herein, on frivolous and concocted grounds, the applicant herein filed a reply to the said application denying the 4 submissions made the respondents herein. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2016, wherein failed to appreciate the evidence on records in a proper way thereby erred in granting a total sum of Rs. 3,000/- to respondents, wherein a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been to respondent No.1 and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent No.2 as monthly maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The petitioner also submits that with respect to the respondent No.2. The petitioner is ready and willing to take custody of the respondent No. 2 (Daughter), and is preparing to file appropriate application before the concern Court of law. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in its right perspective. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the decree of divorce dated 21.08.2014 had been obtained by the applicant herein, on the ground cruelty and unreasonable desertion by the respondent No.1. The Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 is residing separately from the applicant herein since year 2011, without any sufficient reason, and despite the repeatedly efforts made by the applicant herein, she had refused to reside with him, therefore, the respondent No.1 is not entitled for maintenance under Sub-section (4) of the Section 125 of the CrPC. The respondent even during the pendency of the divorce matter before the learned trial Court deliberately did not from contest the matter and merely because the applicant herein has remarried, therefore she had filed application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5 to harass the applicant herein. The claim of the respondent No.1 is not bonafide and merely with an intention to harass the applicant herein she had filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is also evident from the fact that the respondent is living separately from the applicant since Year 2011, and there was no demand of maintenance, but it is only because the applicant has remarried she has filed the application under Section 125 before the learned Court. The learned Family Court erred in law while granting an exorbitant amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter towards maintenance. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 214/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondents, has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter vide impugned order dated 06.04.2016, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar