1 2025:CGHC:24928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 762 of 2016 Bilbar Bhagat S/o Late Alfo Bhagat Aged About 50 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade Iii, At Present R/o Village - Saipura, Post - Amayan, P.S. - Bharauli, Tahsil - Mahgaon, District - Bhind M.P., Permanent Address - Village - Lohada, Post - Chiraiyan, Tahsil - Durmi District - Gumla Jh Wrongly Stated As C.G., Civil And Revenue District - Gumla Jh., Jharkhand ... Applicant versus Rajkishori @ Mannila Bhagat D/o Bhdaru Ram Bhagat Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Paiku, Tahsil And District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 11/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 per month to the respondent/wife. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was alleged in the application that the respondent herein was married with the applicant on 14.06.2011 as per their caste and custom. After marriage, she stayed with the applicant for five days at her matrimonial house. Since the applicant herein is in service at Bhind due to which he told his wife that when some proper arrangement were done regarding accommodation etc., he should take her with him but the applicant herein had not taken her then the respondent came at Bhind and both were stayed for two months. After that, they came to Dumri, Gumla where they stayed two or three days. Thereafter, without any information to her, the applicant herein has left her wife. When this fact came into the knowledge of the respondent herein that the applicant herein has performed second marriage with one Meena since then respondent is living with her parents. The respondent is unable to maintain herself while the applicant herein is in government service where he is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In this circumstance, the respondent herein has filed the aforesaid application for grant of maintenance from her husband. The applicant herein has denied the allegations made in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by filing his reply, it has been specifically stated that, divorce by mutual consent was taken place between the parties as such she is getting maintenance 3 amount as per their divorce. After that when the non-applicant herein started living with one Ramvir Singh as a wife, the applicant herein has stopped to give maintenance to his wife. They were living separately. The applicant herein is having reasonability to look after his elder brother and Bhabhi who are dependent upon him. The learned Family Court after taking evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties, has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC by the respondent herein and has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-per month to the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. the learned Court below has erred in law by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent herein as maintenance amount. The learned Family Court should have considered this fact that both the parties have taken a mutual divorce and accordingly, wife is living separately. The learned Family Court failed to consider this fact that according to an agreement arrived between the parties, the applicant was giving maintenance to his wife. The learned Family Court should have considered that, when the wife started living with one Ramvir Singh as her wife, the applicant stopped giving maintenance to his wife. The learned Family Court should have considered this fact that, a Panchnama was also prepared according to which, the applicant was paying a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards maintenance. The learned Family Court erred in law while granting an exorbitant amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month towards maintenance. Thus, the impugned order 4 is liable to set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent vide impugned order dated 26.07.2016, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order 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