1 2025:CGHC:29217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1241 of 2019 Santram Kenwat S/o Late Daya Ram Kenwat Aged About 63 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Gopalpur, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Fetkan Bai Kenwat W/o Jeet Ram Kenwat Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 218, Gevrathat, Pulpara, Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Wrongly Written As W/o Sant Ram Kenwat @ Santu Caste Kenwat, R/o Nadiyakhad, Pragati Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sannat holding the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sannat holding the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya learned counsel for the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.89/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicant and the respondent got married about 45-50 years ago in a social ceremony in Gewra Basti. They had a daughter from their marital life. However, about 30-40 years ago, the applicant abandoned the respondent and their daughter and took another woman as his second wife without divorcing the respondent. The reason for this abandonment was the applicant’s feeling of humiliation due to the respondent’s rural lifestyle and background. As a result, the respondent was left helpless and had to rely on others for support to maintain herself and her daughter. The respondent being an illiterate and rural woman, was unaware of her legal rights and waited for the applicant to return to her, hoping that he would change his mind and take her back. However, when others helped the respondent, the applicant started making false accusations against her. The respondent was distressed by the applicant’s behavior and complained to the family and society. A meeting was held by the society, where the applicant denied the respondent’s status as his wife and child, saying that they could never prove their relationship. The respondent, feeling aggrieved, filed a 3 complaint with the Sakhi One Stop Centre on July 19, 2017, but no action was taken against the applicant. The respondent further stated that she is an elderly woman and unable to work. On the other hand, the applicant was working with NTPC and has now retired, receiving Rs.50 lakhs as retirement benefits and a monthly pension of Rs.25,000/-. The applicant has no responsibilities and owns a permanent residence with five rooms rented out for Rs.30,000/- per month. Thus, the applicant has a total monthly income of Rs.50,000/-. Despite repeated requests for financial help, the applicant has not provided any maintenance to the respondent. Therefore, the applicant seeks maintenance of Rs.10,000 from the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denying all the claims and allegation as alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant herself left the respondent's house in 1981 and executed a written agreement (Tahrir) on February 22, 1981, in the presence of the Kenwat community, where both parties agreed to divorce each other through a mutual compromise. After leaving the respondent's house, the applicant married Nandkishore and, upon his death, received a widow's pension of Rs.350 per month, as evident from 4 the Ration Card and related documents filed as Annexure A-3. Following Nandkishore's death, the applicant married Jeet Ram Kenwat, with whom she currently resides, as confirmed by her Voter Identity Card and the voter list of Ward No. 53, Municipal Corporation, Korba, filed as Annexure A-4. These facts demonstrate that the applicant has remarried and is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. He also submits that the applicant is currently 65 years old man and suffering from various types of old aged disease, he only obtains Rs.8,000/- pension amount, which is very less amount for the applicant himself. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.2000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the social and economic circumstances of both the parties, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil