1 2025:CGHC:32648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1422 of 2019 Rajkumar Sahu S/o Satyanarayan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Santoshi Bai W/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 28, B.T.I. Road, Near Adiwasi Hostel, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Nemesh Kumar Sahu (Minor) S/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Bai, R/o Ward No. 28, B.T.I. Road, Near Adiwasi Hostel, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:32 +0530 2 appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice equity and good conscience that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A-1) regarding non-applicant No. 02, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was married to the applicant on 13.04.2016, and after the solemnization of the marriage in accordance with the customs of the Hindu community, they started their conjugal life. Out of the lawful wedlock, one Nemesh Kumar Sahu was born on 08.06.2017. The applicant properly maintained the respondent No. 1 for a period of one year, and thereafter, the applicant started to utter filthy abuses towards respondent No. 1 and began to beat and assault her. It is further alleged that the applicant did not provide proper food to the respondent No. 1 and made her work like a maidservant. The applicant also threatened to kill the respondent No. 1 and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. On account of this, a social meeting was held, and in the said meeting, the panchas advised the applicant, but there was no change in his behaviour. It is alleged that the applicant eventually turned out the respondent No. 1 and the child from his house, after which they took shelter at the 3 residence of her aged father. It is further submitted that due to the physical assaults by the applicant, the respondent No. 1 has become very weak, and since she has no means of income, she filed an application before the Family Court seeking maintenance. She stated that the applicant owns 7 acres of agricultural land from which he earns an annual income of Rs. 3 lakhs, and she prayed before the Family Court for the grant of maintenance of Rs. 13,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. In reply to the allegations made against him, the applicant denied all the allegations and stated in the reply that the respondent No. 1 was married to Deeku Rungu Sahu, son of Rupu Ram Sahu, Ward No. 29, BTI Road, Mahasamund, and that she was divorced by her earlier husband. He further stated that no marriage ever took place between him and the respondent No. 1. The applicant also stated that he is a poor person and owns only 2 acres of land, and that he has to maintain four children, his disabled married sister, and his elderly mother, who is physically very weak. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the applicant and the respondent No. 1 before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, the case of the respondent No. 1 was not proved for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the Family Court illegally found the case of respondent No. 2 proved and granted Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the order dated 13.09.2019, which is illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, invalid, unmindful, and 4 contrary to the settled principles of law, it is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the prayer made by respondent No. 2 for the grant of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month, despite the fact that no evidence was produced before the Family Court to arrive at the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was born out of the lawful wedlock of the applicant and respondent No. 1. There is no material on record to establish that respondent No. 2 was born from the lawful wedlock of the applicant and respondent No. 1. As such, the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside, and since there is no liability fastened upon the applicant for payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month under the said order, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. He further submits that in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the learned Family Court has referred to the earlier husband of respondent No. 1, from whom divorce has not taken place. The learned Family Court has found that no divorce has occurred between respondent No. 1 and her earlier husband, Deeku Sahu. Since the respondent No. 1 is the second wife of the applicant, and there is no evidence on record regarding the birth of respondent No. 2 from the relationship with the applicant, no presumption or assumption could legally be drawn by the learned Family Court as it has done. Therefore, the liability for maintaining respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside, and this revision filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearign for the respondents 5 opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 02 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek