1 2025:CGHC:38445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1131 of 2022 Phaniram Bharadwaj S/o Shri Shatruhan Bharadwaj Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Churtela, Police Station Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Rekha Bharadwaj W/o Phaniram Bhardwaj Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Churtela, Police Station Pamgarh, Present Address- Village Bhalwahi (Lagra), Police Station Mulmula, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.72/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent took place approximately 20 years ago as per Hindu PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 10:45:59 +0530 2 rituals at Village Bhalwahi, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Out of this wedlock, two sons were born: Bhanu Pratap (aged about 19 years) and Khuleshwar (aged about 17 years). The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the applicant remarried one Smt. Sangeeta Bharadwaj; that she (respondent) lived partly at her matrimonial and parental homes for about two years; and that the applicant later forced her out of the matrimonial home. She claims to have left her children at the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. On 23.03.2019, her father brought her back to the matrimonial home, where the applicant initially accepted her but later ousted her again. Despite several social and family interventions, no resolution was reached. The respondent has also lodged an FIR against the applicant and his second wife for offences under Sections 498-A, 494, and 34 of the IPC at P.S. Pamgarh, which is currently pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh. Based on the applicant’s alleged income, the respondent claims she is entitled to Rs. 30,000/- as monthly maintenance. 3. In response to the notice, the applicant appeared and denied the allegations. He stated that he is a daily wage laborer working under a contractor. He further contended that the marriage between him and the respondent was dissolved through a customary divorce ('Chod-Chutti') in 2013, after which she began living separately at her parental home. He also alleged that the respondent subsequently entered into a 'Chudi marriage' with another man and lived with him for about six years. When that relationship ended, she filed the maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC, which, according to the applicant, is not maintainable. The trial court, after hearing both parties and examining the evidence, awarded Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 3 However, the applicant contends that the Court erred by ignoring the fact that the marriage had been dissolved in 2013 and that the respondent had been living separately since then. Failing to consider that the respondent had remarried and lived with another man for six years, and filed for maintenance only after that relationship ended. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law. The learned Trial Court erred in holding that the respondent/wife is living separately without sufficient reason. The Court failed to recognize that the marriage between the applicant/husband and the respondent/wife had already been dissolved. The Trial Court did not consider that the respondent/wife had remarried and lived with another person for approximately six years. Only after that relationship ended did she file the present maintenance application, which is not legally maintainable. The Trial Court erred in relying on documents marked as Exhibits A-2 to A-14, which are inadmissible, as the originals were not produced and no application for secondary evidence was filed. Therefore, the income assessment based on these documents is illegal and contrary to law. The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and was fixed without properly considering the actual income of the applicant. The Trial Court overlooked the fact that the applicant is also responsible for the care of his elderly parents. The applicant is a daily wage laborer struggling to meet basic needs, which the Court failed to appreciate. The Trial Court failed to properly evaluate the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4 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 parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti