1 2025:CGHC:13176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1105 of 2024 1 - Smt. Tanuja W/o Dinesh Kumar Aged About 26 Years Gond Tribal, R/o Shivnagar, Kanker, Tehsil And District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Lt. Shri Bihari Lal Dhruv Aged About 28 Years Gond Tribal, R/o Uday Nagar, Kanker, Tehsil And District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Ms. Shalini Gera, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/03/2025 Present revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Raipur in MCC No. 55/2021 whereby the family court, Kanker has rejected the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was performed on 16.02.2020 at Shiv Nagar, Kanker according to the customs of Gond 2 community. After their marriage, husband /non-applicant and her in-laws treated her with cruelty and on several occasions tortured her mentally and physically and since 24.12.2020, therfore the applicant is residing separately from her husband. It is stated that the respondent is a Constable at Cyber Cell in Kanker and is earning Rs. 17,300/- per month and Rs. 31,096/- per month from SBI Life Insurance, earns Rs. 50,000/- from agricultural land despite this, he is not giving any amount towards maintenance to the applicant being wife therefore, the applicant filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and demanded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. 3. After considering all the aspects of the case, the court below has held that the applicant is in a position to maintain herself and earlier he was in service and to some extent the non-applicant also has the responsibility as she is his wife and that nothing has come on record that he is willingly avoiding to pay the maintenance. Instead the non- applicant has tried to convene a community meeting and as per Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. there should be sufficient reason for the wife to reside separately from her husband which has not been proved and therefore rejected the application. It is this order which has been challenged by the applicant in this revision. 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the non- applicant has performed second marriage without decree of divorce. As per Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. there is sufficient reason for the applicant to reside separately from her husband/non-applicant because he has performed second marriage. 5. Counsel for the non-applicant submits that the applicant is living separately without any justification, the monthly income of the non- 3 applicant is not as such where he can pay the amount of maintenance to the applicant. It is admitted fact that the non-applicant has performed second marriage on 27.07.2024 though there is no decree of divorce in his favour and therefore, the applicant has sufficient reason to reside separately from her husband. 6. Thus, in view of the overall discussion, the matter is remanded back to the Family court with a direction that the Family court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both the parties on the issue of quantum of maintenance amount decide the case on its own merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the case is sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. Meanwhile, parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 8th April 2025 at 11.00 am. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge