1 2025:CGHC:8704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 237 of 2025 1 - Vinod Rajput S/o Shri Mansingh Rajput Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Majgoan, Police Station And Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.). --- (Revisioner). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sadhna Rajput W/o Shri Vinod Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Majgaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.). --- Present Address - Village - Bhathapara, Police Station And Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.). (Applicant). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, 2 Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 532/2023 whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance filed by the non-applicant has been allowed and maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of application, i.e., from 20.12.2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Trial Court stating that non-applicant got married with the applicant herein with the bangle custom (चूड़ी) on 22.01.2020 as per hindu rites and rituals. One son was born out of their wedlock who was taken home forcefully by applicant herein, therefore due to lack of oxygen supply newly born child died. Applicant herein was fully aware with all these facts that non-applicant is a weak lady and due to physical complications non-applicant was not able to do hard work despite of it applicant herein tortured non-applicant for demand of dowry. In the month of September, 2022 at the time of Teeja festival, applicant herein left the non-applicant at her parental house and never came back to bring her. Moreover, applicant herein has illicit relation with another woman. 3. After considering the application and reply filed by both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned family Court vide its order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) granted amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent by the learned Family Court, hence this revision is being filed to set aside the order of the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances fo the case. The learned Family Court has allowed the application of the maintenance amount of the respondent against the applicant and awarded the amount of Rs. 3000/- which is not justified and reasonable. The respondent made so many false allegation against the applicant regarding the cruelty and harassed the applicant and his family members. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the applicant was already married with his first wife. The applicant again got married with the non-applicant with the bangle custom (चूड़ी) on 22.01.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant resided with the non- applicant till 4 years as husband and wife and one son was born out of their wedlock who was taken home forcefully by applicant herein, therefore due to lack of oxygen supply newly born child died. The applicant has accepted the fact that चूड़ी marriage is prevailing in his society. Based upon the aforesaid facts, the learned Family Court assumed that the non-applicant is the wife of applicant. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly held that the non-applicant is the wife of applicant. 7. The applicant/husband cannot be absolved from his liability and 4 responsibility to maintain his wife. Since the wife is unable to maintain herself, therefore, a reasonable/sufficient amount is required for her maintenance which shall have to be paid by the husband, irrespective of the decree of dissolution of marriage. The amount of Rs. 3000/- as maintenance to wife is a very meager amount. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 532/2023. 9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima