1 2025:CGHC:29195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1498 of 2019 Kabiraj Tandi S/o Kunj Bihari Tandi Aged About 36 Years Caste- Ganda, R/o Village Chhindpali, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Vimla Tandi W/o Kabiraj Tandi Aged About 32 Years Caste- Ganda, R/o Chhindpali, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Anmol Tandi S/o Kabiraj Tandi Aged About 09 Months, Represented Through Mother Smt. Vimla Tandi W/o Kabirraj Tandi, Caste- Ganda, R/o Chhindpali, Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Manju Naik, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Manju Naik, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:39:33 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, camp Court Saraipali (C.G.) or pass appropriate order looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized as per rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born, who is residing with respondent No. 1. The respondent has stated in her application that after the marriage, she resided happily with the applicant for about 10–12 years, and during this period, two sons were born from their wedlock, who subsequently died. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 became pregnant, which ended in a miscarriage, and the doctor advised that if the respondent became pregnant again, her life would be in danger. 4. Thereafter, the applicant performed a second marriage with one Deepa, and they began residing together. After some time, both respondent No. 1 and Deepa became pregnant, and at the time of delivery of respondent No. 1, the applicant refused to bear her 3 medical expenses. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 gave birth to respondent No. 2, and the delivery expenses were borne by the parents of respondent No. 1. It has further been stated that the applicant has sufficient agricultural land, from which he earns an income of about 2–3 lakh per year. Hence, the respondent claimed a maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5. The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and specifically contended that respondent No. 1 became pregnant four times, but no child survived, and the doctor advised that respondent No. 1 could never become a mother. Therefore, the applicant performed a second marriage with the consent of respondent No. 1. On 25.07.2019, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order, partly allowing the claim of the respondents and directing the applicant to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 27/2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court, Saraipali (C.G.), is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He submitst that the learned Family Court has wrongly considered the grievance of the respondents and has failed to consider the defence version of the applicant. The learned Family Court has wrongly arrived at a conclusion regarding the income of the applicant and has failed to appreciate that resopondent No. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. He further submits that respondent No. 1 has no legal reason to reside separately from the applicant. This fact has been 4 overlooked by the learned Family Court. He also submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the applicant, and the applicant is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount as directed by the learned Family Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek