1 2025:CGHC:41488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1180 of 2024 1 - Smt. Gayatri Tigga W/o Santtius Tigga Aged About 32 Years R/o Sontarai, Harijanpara, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Angel S/o Santtius Tigga Aged About 9 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gayatri Tigga, R/o Sontarai, Harijanpara, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Santtius Tigga S/o Lorensh Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Lamdad, Thana Kasabail, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Village Poksari, Thana And Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. R.B. Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and the order dated 01.10.2024 may kindly be set-aside in respect of applicant no. 1 wife and may kindly grant maintenance to the applicant no. 1 Wife from the non-applicant, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2024, the applicant Smt. Gayatri Tigga filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- against her husband non-applicant Santlius Tigga before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) which has been registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 208/2024 and notice has been sent to non- applicant Santlius Tigga, with the averment that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 20.01.2014 by the Rites & Rituals and out of their wedlock one Girl child Angel Tigga was born on 24.03.2015. It is further alleged that the applicant No. 1 got married to the non-applicant on 20.01.2014 as per the social customs and from their marital relationship a daughter was born who is currently residing with the applicant No.1. The character of the non-applicant is not good and he is currently in a love affair with another woman. The non-applicant drinks alcohol and beats the applicant No.1 and her daughter and when the applicant No.1 refuses, he behaves badly with her and does not even give her food. Despite holding the post of a teacher, the non-applicant talks to other women in front of his wife and lives with them, when the applicant No.1 refused him, he threw the applicant No.1 and her 3 daughter out of the house about 6 months ago. The non-applicant is a teacher and gets a salary of Rs 75 thousand per month and he also having land in village Lamdad, from which he earns Rs 5 lakh annually from agriculture tax. The applicant No.1 is a house wife and does not do any work. The applicant No.1 needs Rs 30 thousand per month for her and her daughter's upbringing, treatment, education and clothes and the non-applicant is capable of giving it. Therefore, the applicants should be given a maintenance amount of Rs 30,000/- per month from the non- applicants. Notice summons has been served to the non-applicant, thereafter, he has filed his reply of the application filed by the applicants and denied the all averment of the application. 4. The learned Family Court framed three issues and examined the applicant Smt. Gayatri Tigga as A.W.-1 and her witness Madan Sai as A.W.-2 and Matukdhari Ram and after examination and cross examination of aforesaid witnesses examined the non-applicant Santlius Tigga as N.A.W. No. 1 and his witness Kirtan Prasad Sahu as N.A.W. -2 and after examination and cross examination of non- applicant and his witness heard the argument and passed the order dated 01.10.2024 whereby dismissed the application of the applicant No 1/ wife on the ground that she is working on contract in the Health Department and gets a monthly salary of Rs. 12000/-. However, the non-applicant is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.2 (son) till majority. Hence this revision. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 duly proved her case with cogent evidence; therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the non-applicant is not justified. The Family Court has dismissed the application for maintenance solely on the ground that the applicant/wife is employed on a contractual basis in the Health Department and receives a monthly salary of ₹12,000/-. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court relied upon an affidavit filed by applicant No.1 in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, wherein due to a bona fide mistake, the salary of ₹45,000/- was mentioned against the name of the applicant instead of the non-applicant. This inadvertent error was clarified by applicant No.1 during the proceedings, but the learned Family Court failed to consider this clarification and proceeded to decide the matter solely on the basis of the incorrect affidavit. He further submits that on the date of judgment the applicant No.1 with her counsel appeared before the family Court at 11.00 am and submits one necessary Documents related to the non- applicant husbands let to filed and granted some time to file but learned family Court has not permitted to file that Document in which on 23.09.2023 by the illicit relationship of husband one baby girl born in Government hospital but learned Family Court has not permitted to file that Document and Said the judgment has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from a serious error of law and fact, as it disregards the correct financial position of the 5 parties and the evidence on record. Hence, the order passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of ₹5,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (son) till majority. At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (wife) was rejected on the ground that the applicant No.1 failed to prove her case, the learned Family Court observed that she is working lady and earn sufficient for her livelihood. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 6 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal