1 2025:CGHC:41505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1321 of 2024 Smt. Taradevi Nareti W/o Shri Sewak Ram Nareti Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Gond, R/o Village - Rampur, Post- Puri, Thana And Tahsil- Charama, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Sewak Ram Nareti S/o Late Shri Kanhai Ram Nareti Aged About 62 Years By Caste- Gond, R/o Village - Rampur, Post- Puri, Thana And Tahsil- Charama, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) --- Non-applicant Along with CRR No. 1166 of 2024 Sevak Ram Nareti S/o Late Kanhai Ram Nareti Aged About 62 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Rampur, Post Puri, Thana And Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant Versus Smt. Taradevi Nareti W/o Sevak Ram Nareti Aged About 45 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Rampur, Post Puri, Thana And Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant In CRR No. 1321/2024 For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate In CRR No. 1166/2024 For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 / 08 /20 25 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Taradevi Nareti. The learned Judge, Family Court, Kanker district- Kanker, vide order dated 10.09.2024, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs. 3000/- to the wife, Smt. Taradevi Nareti. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Taradevi Nareti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1321/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Sewak Ram Nareti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1166/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant/husband Sewak Ram Nareti, would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order of maintenance, as the Respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the Applicant and, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is urged that the Court below failed to properly consider and appreciate the pleadings, reply, and evidence adduced by the 3 parties, and proceeded in a one-sided manner on mere presumptions. It is further submitted that the Family Court completely overlooked the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the conduct and attitude of the Respondent, and passed an order which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. No legally permissible evidence was produced by the Respondent to establish her entitlement to maintenance. The impugned order is contrary to the facts, provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and settled legal principles. It is also submitted that the Applicant is a low-paid pensionary employee with the responsibility of maintaining his real wife and other family members, and is not in a financial position to pay such a huge amount of maintenance. The order has thus been passed without properly evaluating the evidence, without granting reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to put forth his case, and suffers from illegality, impropriety, and lack of jurisdiction. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case and set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant/wife would submit that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in passing the impugned order by awarding only a meager amount of maintenance in favour of the Applicant, despite the evidence on record clearly proving that she has no independent source of income and is residing separately with sufficient cause. It is contended that the family Court failed to take into account the fact that the Respondent/husband is receiving a pension of Rs.50,000/- per month and also owns other assets, including 8 acres of agricultural 4 land, yet awarded an amount contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC. It is further urged that the testimony of witnesses Rain Singh Kango and Ravishankar Gond, who are elderly heads of the Gond community and categorically deposed that the marriage of the Applicant with the Respondent took place with the consent of the first wife, has been completely overlooked. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the Respondent continuously subjected the Applicant to physical and mental harassment, which constituted sufficient cause for her to reside separately, and that she has been ousted by the Respondent and left without means of livelihood. It is further submitted that the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- is grossly inadequate and unrealistic in view of the rising cost of living and the binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra). Hence, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and deserves to be set aside with a direction for grant of just and proper maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 10.09.2024, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 5 3000/- per month towards maintenance to wife. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Taradevi Nareti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1321/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living, hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Sewak Ram Nareti, filed Criminal Revision No. 1166/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/ set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order as well as original records be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan