1 2025:CGHC:42719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1038 of 2025 Anjor Singh Gabel S/o Kanhaiyalal Gabel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Pandotara, Post Setganga, Police Station Fastarpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Savita Gabel W/o Anjor Singh Gabel, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhuwalpur, Post Bagharra, Post Bagharra Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) At Present R/o C/o. Smt. Hemkumari, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of maintenance dated 28-05-2024 (Annexure A- 1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized about 15 years ago according to Hindu customs and rituals. The respondent/wife alleged that after 3–4 years of marriage, when no child was born, the applicant/husband and his family members subjected her to mental and physical cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, and in the year 2010, the husband deserted her at her parental home and subsequently contracted a second marriage without obtaining divorce from the legally wedded wife. It is further alleged that in a social meeting the husband had agreed to transfer 1 acre of land in her favour, but the said land continues to remain in his possession. The wife also claimed that the husband is working as a labourer earning about Rs.9,000/- per month and owns 2 acres of land, and therefore claimed Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance. The husband, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that false claims have been made by the wife. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the wife’s application and directed the husband to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order of maintenance dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law and procedure, and suffers from manifest illegality and perversity, and therefore is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has erred in 3 directing the applicant/husband to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife despite the specific stand of the applicant that no valid marriage ever took place between them, and in absence of proof of a legally valid marriage, no order of maintenance could have been passed under law. It is further submitted that the order impugned is based on surmises and conjectures without proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, has rightly held that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized about 15 years ago according to Hindu customs and rituals, and that the respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty and desertion, and further that the husband had contracted a second marriage without obtaining divorce from his legally wedded wife. The Family Court has also taken into account the allegation regarding the assurance of transfer of land, as well as the financial status of the husband, who is working as a labourer and possesses agricultural land, while assessing the entitlement of the wife to claim maintenance. After carefully appreciating the rival submissions, the Family Court has partly allowed the wife’s application and directed the husband to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 4 6. Considering the submission 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan