1 2025:CGHC:34911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1249 of 2022 Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Late Tukaram Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-Pendri Post Selud, Police Station Utai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Shikha Sharma W/o Mohan Lal Sharma Aged About 25 Years C/o Smt. Krishna Tiwari, Ram Nagar, Ward No.58, Shiv Mandir Gali, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vardan Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Gis Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shikha Sharma, C/o Smt. Krishna Tiwari, Ram Nagar, Ward No.58, Shiv Mandir Gali, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Pooja Sinha, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside/reduce the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 16.11.2016 as per Hindu rituals, and a child, non-applicant No.2, was born out of the wedlock on 19.04.2018. Non-applicant No.1 alleged that prior to marriage, she was misled with false information claiming that the applicant owned a house and agricultural land and had no addictions, which later turned out to be untrue. She further stated that she was subjected to harassment by the applicant and his family members, and eventually, the applicant abandoned her at her parental home, where she has been residing since. On these grounds, she sought a maintenance amount of ₹40,000 per month. The learned Family Court, after considering the matter ex-parte, passed an order granting ₹2,000 per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and liable to be set aside or reduced, as it is based on incorrect and misleading information furnished by non-applicant No.1. She submitted a false affidavit regarding her employment status, which stands contradicted by the 3 certificate issued by the District Bar Council, Durg dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure A-2). Furthermore, although she agreed to resume cohabitation with the applicant on 29.09.2021, as recorded in the ordersheet (Annexure A-3), she never returned to live with him, reflecting her unwillingness to restore matrimonial life. The applicant asserts that neither he nor his family members ever subjected non-applicant No.1 to any physical or mental cruelty, and her decision to not live in the joint family is deliberate and unjustified. In view of the false statements and her conduct, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order granting ₹2,000 per month as maintenance to non-applicant No.1 and the child, non- applicant No.2, after considering the facts, allegations, and circumstances of the case. The court duly took into account the assertion made by non-applicant No.1 that she was misled into marriage through false representations regarding the applicant’s property and habits, and that she was subjected to harassment and 4 ultimately abandoned at her parental home. Given that she has been residing separately since then and is responsible for the upbringing of the minor child, the court, in its judicial wisdom, awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance to ensure basic financial support for the wife and child. The order is fair, lawful, and in accordance with the spirit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which aims to prevent destitution and safeguard the rights of dependents. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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