1 2025:CGHC:41479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1229 of 2024 Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 33 Years (At Present 38 Years), R/o Bhothapara, Madamsilli, P.S. Keregaon, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Rekha Bai Sahu W/o Shiv Kumar Sahu, D/o Tulsiram Aged About 27 Years (At Present 32 Years), R/o Near Pani Tanki, Chandrakar Mohall, Imlidih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 8 Years (At Present 13 Years), Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Rekha Bai Sahu W/o Shiv Kumar Sahu, R/o Near Pani Tanki, Chandrakar Mohall, Imlidih, Raipur, Distt. Raipur - Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. R.Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) in M.J.C No.618/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:21 +0530 2 partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e. 20.06.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents (wife and son) filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance. It was stated that the marriage between the applicant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2008 as per Hindu customs, and they resided together at Village Bhothaoara until 2012. Out of the wedlock, a son (Respondent No. 2) was born. The applicant was allegedly a habitual drinker who frequently abused, assaulted, and demanded dowry from the respondent wife. Due to his cruelty, her first pregnancy was aborted. Subsequently, the applicant expelled the wife and their son from the matrimonial home. Since then, they have been residing at Imlidih near Water Tank, Chandrakar Mohalla. The wife has no independent source of income. A social meeting was called, where it was decided that the husband would pay Rs.100 per month as maintenance. It was further alleged that the applicant has since remarried. The respondent claimed that the applicant works as a mason ("Raj Mistry") earning Rs.15,000 per month and owns three acres of agricultural land, and thus sought Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. He contended that the respondent wife left the matrimonial home on her own and refused to return despite his 3 efforts. A social meeting was convened, during which the wife allegedly insisted on divorce. The applicant claimed that the respondent has sufficient means and earns Rs.7,000–Rs.8,000 per month. He further asserted that, in the social meeting held on 09.02.2023 by members of the Sahu community, the marriage was formally dissolved, and thereafter the respondent wife remarried one Parasram Sahu of Village Badi Kareli, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.). It was also decided that the applicant would remarry after two years. Accordingly, the applicant solemnized a second marriage after the stipulated time. Since Respondent No. 1 has remarried, she is no longer entitled to claim maintenance. He also stated that the respondent was not fulfilling her marital duties and had no intention of continuing the marriage. The applicant denied owning any agricultural land and claimed poor financial status. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. After trial, vide impugned order dated 29.08.2024, the Learned Family Court allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000 per month to Respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs.1,000 per month to Respondent No. 2 (son), totaling Rs.4,000 per month from the date of the application. 4. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had proved, through oral and documentary evidence, that Respondent No. 1 had contracted a second marriage with Parasram Sahu. Despite this, the Court recorded perverse findings and committed a grave error in awarding maintenance in her favour. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P/1), the 4 applicant prefers this instant criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the statements of Paras Ram Sahu and the witness to the social meeting clearly establish that Respondent No. 1 (wife) has performed a second marriage with Paras Ram Sahu. However, the learned Family Court failed to consider these statements, thereby committing an error in law. Respondent No. 1 has herself admitted that a social meeting took place on 09.02.2023. This admission makes it evident that a social divorce had occurred between the applicant and Respondent No. 1. He further submits that witness Hari Chand Sahu has deposed that Paras Ram Sahu had obtained a divorce from his first wife in a social meeting and thereafter solemnized his second marriage with Respondent No. 1. Therefore, from the testimony of this witness, it stands proved that Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 8. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the evidence presented in the case demonstrates that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself. Further, respondent No. 1 is the wife of the applicant and is residing separately for justifiable reasons. Respondent No. 2, son Mukesh Kumar Sahu, is residing with his mother, Respondent No. 1 Rekha Bai. The applicant is both morally and legally obligated to provide maintenance to the respondents. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submission 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. 10. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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