1 2025:CGHC:47302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 339 of 2020 Krishna Gopal Yadav S/o Shri Ram Gopal Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Durgdih, Tahsil and Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rani Rajeshwari Yadav W/o Shri Krishan Gopal Yadav R/o Durgdih, Tahsil And Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, At Present Kuvapali, Tahsil And Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Hansraj Yadav Aged About 2 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rani Rajeshwari Yadav, R/o Durgdih, Tahsil And Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, At Present Kuvapali, Tahsil And Police Station Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.705/2018, whereby the learned Family PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:43:30 +0530 2 Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 1,800/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,200/- per month to non-applicant No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the non-applicants filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). It was alleged that two months after the marriage, the wife moved to Village Khamtarai to pursue a B.Ed. degree. The applicant/husband allegedly opposed her education and subjected her to harassment and physical abuse. It was further claimed that during her pregnancy, the husband assaulted her and subsequently abandoned her, bringing another woman, Smt. Lata Yadav of Village Parsada, to live with him as his wife. 3. In his reply before the Family Court, the husband submitted that he bore all the expenses for the wife's education and that his father had spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards her B.Ed. degree. He claimed to have spent Rs. 1 lakh himself. He also stated that the wife is presently employed as a teacher at Kasturba Gandhi School, Bartori, earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, and had submitted a written statement at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, stating she would not return to her matrimonial home. He further mentioned that he is the only child of his parents, who are financially dependent on him. Based on these grounds, the husband filed an application under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. for modification of the earlier maintenance order, contending that the wife now has sufficient means to maintain herself and is, 3 therefore, not entitled to continued maintenance. This application, registered as MJC No.117/2020, was filed before the Family Court, Bilaspur, on 31-01-2020. The order sheet dated 11-02-2020 records that the case was fixed for reply on 13-03-2020. The husband challenged the earlier order dated 17-01-2019 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the wife, being gainfully employed and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, is no longer entitled to maintenance. Pursuant to directions of this Court in CRMP No.97/2020, he was advised to seek variation of the maintenance order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 11-02-2020 (Annexure A-1), awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. The applicant submits that this amount is excessive and hence, files this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, invalid, arbitrary, contrary to law and procedure, and suffers from serious irregularities and perversity. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and/or the maintenance amount reduced. The non-applicant No.1-wife has obtained a B.Ed. degree and is presently employed as a teacher at Kasturba Gandhi School, Bartori, earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The expenses for her B.Ed. education and rental accommodation were borne by the applicant’s father-in-law. Despite the applicant having submitted this fact in his reply before the Family Court, the Court failed to consider it. Further, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 16.01.2020, the applicant filed an application under 4 Section 127(1) CrPC, which was registered as MJC No. 117/2020 on 31.01.2020. However, the learned Family Court committed a procedural illegality by not tagging this application with the pending matter (MJC No. 705/2018) and proceeded to pass the final order on 11.02.2020 without considering the said application. Therefore, the impugned order is not only procedurally defective but also substantively flawed. The applicant humbly prays that the execution of the order dated 11.02.2020 be stayed, as he is currently unemployed and financially dependent on his father. He further submits that under the RTI Act, the applicant obtained information from Kasturba Gandhi School, confirming that the non-applicant-wife has been employed as a teacher since 01.07.2018, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-, and continued in service during the 2019–2020 academic session. Additionally, in the conciliation proceedings before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, the non-applicant No.1-wife clearly stated that she had no intention of returning to the matrimonial home, leading to the closure of the proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband has admitted in paragraph 07 of the impugned order in his cross-examination that he has entered into a second marriage and has a daughter from his second wife. Thus, from the above evidence, it is clear that the non-applicant is residing separately due to the aforesaid act of the applicant. Therefore, it is not proved that Non-applicant No. 01, Smt. Rani Rajeshwari, is 5 refusing to live with her husband, the applicant, without sufficient cause. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti