1 2025:CGHC:30928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1525 of 2019 Mohardas Patle S/o. Santram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Khidiyadih, Tahsil, Police Station and District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, … Applicant versus Jayabai W/o. Shri Mohardas Patle Aged About 35 Years Resident of Village Darrighat, Tahsil and Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.15/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has passed the order and grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent in her application is that after death of first wife Bhubi Bai, prior to 16 years the applicant has got Churi marriage solemnized with the respondent, and thereafter they was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.08 11:30:10 +0530 2 living peacefully possession as husband and wife and before 5 months the applicant has harassed and tortured with the respondent and he has left respondent at matrimonial house by using tonahi word, thereafter, he was never came at her parental house to carry the respondent and the applicant is having 10 acre agriculture land and he is working as construction of house, and earns Rs. 5 lakhs per annual and subsequently the respondent is seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month against the applicant. The applicant has been submitted reply and have denied the pleading of marriage and he has no any physical relationship with the respondent and he is working as labour and he is already having one-one married son and daughter and one-one unmarried son and daughter and hence maintenance amount respondent is liable to be rejected. After pleading of the both parties the learned Family Court the issues and recorded the statement of the parties and there witnesses and passed the impugned order granting the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned orders is bad in law, thus liable to be set aside. He further submits that the applicant is working as labour and the respondent has failed to prove the income of the applicant. The applicant is already having four son and daughter wherein one-one married son and daughter and one-one unmarried son and daughter and he has never physical relationship with the respondent and he hence the impugned maintenance order is liable to be set-aside. The respondent has already three solemnized marriage woman lady and concealed this facts, he has deliberately manner filed application for seeking maintenance amount against the applicant, hence impugned order is dismissed. The applicant is a poor person and he has worked as labour and he is living with his four children, due to which, he is 3 unable to maintain himself, and the condition is not progressive and not likely to improve, although this fact was overlooked by the learned Family Court. The respondent has obtained agriculture land from her parent and also having milking cow and earns Rs. 30,000/- and hence she is able to her maintenance for livelihood and thus the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondent/wife - Jaya Bai has stated that she has no source of income and is living her life with difficulty. Whereas the applicant has stated that the respondent is receiving ten thousand rupees each from her former husbands. Apart from this, she earns ten thousand rupees monthly by working as a daily wage labourer. But, there is no document regarding the respondent receiving ten thousand rupees each from her former husbands. Whereas the respondent states that after separating from her former husbands, she has been living with the applicant as a wife for about 16 years. In such a situation, the question of receiving money from the former husbands does not arise. Certainly, the respondent has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and 4 is hereby dismissed. 8. 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