1 2025:CGHC:5643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2000 of 2018 1. Padmani W/o Vijay Kumar Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Banshilal S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station - Sarsinwa, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh; 2. Ku. Disency D/o Vijay Kumar Banjare Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Padmani Banjare, C/o Banshilal S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station - Sarsinwa, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh; 3. Ku. Sakshi D/o Vijay Kumar Banjare Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Padmani Banjare, C/o Banshilal S/o Laxman Kurre, Near Rice Mill, Balpur, Police Station - Sarsinwa, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus • Vijay Kumar S/o Late Awadhram Banjare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Mohtara, Police Station - Sarsinwa, Tahsil- Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. C.R. Sahu Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2025 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.03 17:46:27 +0530 2 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by learned Second Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 64/2015, by which the learned revisional Court has modified the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 67/2013 and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the petitioners towards their maintenance instead of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner No.1/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, whereby submitted that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent are wife and husband and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been born from their wedlock. The respondent/husband used to doubt about the character of the petitioner No. 1 and in the year 2012, he performed Chudi marriage with one Mathura Banjare and ultimately the respondent ousted the petitioners from his house, therefore the petitioners are living in a rental house. The respondent is running provision shop and cycle stores, apart from this, he have 10 acres agricultural land and despite having sufÏcient source of income, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the petitioners, therefore the petitioners filed an application for maintenance. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply to the application and denied the allegation, except the admitted fact. It was briefly submitted by the respondent that the petitioner No. 1 is living in adultery and she was caught raid handed in compromising position with one Rampravesh. It was also submitted by the respondent that one daughter namely Sonali is living with the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 herself has executed a Talaknama before the Notary, whereby given 3 consent for second marriage of respondent and she also agreed to maintain herself and her children. After consent of petitioner No. 1, the respondent has performed second marriage and living with his second wife and daughter Sonali. It was further submitted by the respondent that the petitioner is working as Anganbadi Worker and used to get salary of Rs. 5000/- per month, therefore the petitioners are not entitled to maintenance and the application filed by them deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 29.07.2015, the learned trial Court has directed the respondent to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the petitioners towards their maintenance. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015, the respondent filed a revision before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar and vide order dated 14.06.2018, the learned revisional court has modified the order dated 29.07.2015 and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioners towards their maintenance instead of Rs. 5000/- per month. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside/quashed. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that at present the petitioner No. 1 has been removed from the post of Anganbadi Worker. He further submits that the learned revisional Court has gravely erred in reducing the maintenance amount from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 3000/-. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that in present scenario of society, the amount of Rs. 3000/- is not sufÏcient for maintenance of the children of the petitioner No.1. He later submits that the revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/husband is running a provision shop, cycle store and also having agricultural land and he has sufÏcient source of income, whereas the petitioners have no 4 source of income. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has performed second marriage without obtaining divorce. The findings recorded by the learned revisional Court are perverse, erroneous and baseless. Hence, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner No.1 is an Anganwadi worker, earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month, along with other benefits, and is capable of supporting herself and her children. Further, the petitioner No. 1 admitted that she had not submitted documents related to her husband's ownership of land, ration shop or cycle shop. However, she has a Below-Poverty-Line(BPL) card in their husband's name, indicating that he is a poor person with no source of income. Additionally, since petitioner No.1 has performed another marriage with other person who is a constable, it will be assumed that she has a sufficient source of income. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/judgment passed by the revisional Court, it transpires that the marriage between both the parties has been dissolved by the competent Court vide order dated 12.12.2015 on the ground of mutual consent. Further, the respondent/husband do not have any sufÏcient means to pay the huge amount of maintenance because he has a small shop of cycle repairing and his earning is very low. Moreover, petitioner No. 1/wife 5 herself has admitted that she is working as Anganbadi worker at village- Mohtara. Additionally, since the petitioner No.1/wife has performed remarriage, it will be assumed that she has a sufficient source of income, I am of the view that the revisional Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti