1 2025:CGHC:40147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1062 of 2023 Krishna Kumar Thakur S/o Ramnath Thakur, Aged About 55 Years R/o Banabgoud ( Kukrel), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ganga Thakur W/o Krishna Kumar Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o Barpara Hatkeshwar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Present R/o Dipopara Sorid, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vinay Kumar Thakur S/o Krishna Kumar Thakur Aged About 10 Years Through Mother Of Minor Ganga Thakur, R/o Barpara Hatkeshwar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Present R/o Dipopara Sorid, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Ananya Thakur D/o Krishna Kumar Thakur, Aged About 2 Years Through Mother Of Minor Ganga Thakur, R/o Barpara Hatkeshwar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Present R/o Dipopara Sorid, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2023 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.192/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent No. 1 was married earlier, from which she had a son, respondent No. 2, Vinay Kumar. After the death of her former husband, she started residing at her parental home in Village Naraypur, District Kanker. The applicant’s first wife resides in Village Banbagaud. As the applicant and his first wife had no heirs, with the full consent of his first wife, the applicant married respondent No. 1 on 05.01.2019 3 in accordance with Hindu customs and social traditions, in the presence of family members and relatives, by the customary chudi (bangle) ceremony. After the marriage, respondent No. 1 started living with the applicant in Village Banbagaud and they began their marital life, as a result of which respondent No. 3, Ku. Ananya, was born. At the time of marriage, the applicant accepted respondent No. 2, Vinay Kumar, as his own son and brought him along to live with them. After living in Village Banbagaud for some time, the applicant moved with the respondent to Dhamtari for livelihood purposes and they began residing in a rented house at Barpara Hatkeshar, where they continued their marital life. 5. During that period, the applicant would bring his alcoholic friends home and pressurise respondent No. 1 to have forced relations with them, misbehaving with her. He neglected the care and maintenance of the respondent and her children, failed to pay the rent for the house, and upon being questioned, would assault her. Eventually, the applicant left the respondents in the rented house without informing them and went to stay with his first wife. After 2–3 months, respondent No. 1 lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari. A few days later, the applicant returned to Hatkeshar, paid the pending rent to the landlord, left a small amount of money for the respondents, and stated that henceforth he would neither live with the respondent nor provide any financial support. He then went back to Village Banbagaud, District Dhamtari. A few days later, when the respondent No.1 went there with her children, the applicant assaulted her and drove her away. 4 She further alleged that she is currently supporting herself and her children by borrowing money from others. Their present condition is not good. The applicant is neither taking care of the respondent nor paying the rent for their accommodation. The applicant is engaged in selling Altos medicines and food items, earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000–Rs.20,000/-. In addition, he owns 4 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns an annual income of Rs.1.50 lakh. Therefore, respondent No. 1 has prayed that she be awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- for herself and Rs.2,000/- each for respondents No. 2 and 3, to be paid by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- to each of the respondents towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 has not produced any evidence to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the first wife of the present applicant is alive, and under Hindu Law, a married person cannot contract another marriage without obtaining a divorce from his first wife. In the present case, no evidence has been produced by respondent No. 1 to show that the present applicant has obtained a divorce from his first wife. The statement of the applicant that he is impotent and, therefore, unable to beget a child. Accordingly, there is no issue born 5 to the present applicant from his first wife. He further submits that present applicant, being impotent, has once again undergone medical examination at the District Hospital, wherein the medical report clearly states that the present applicant is impotent. This fact is evident from the medical report dated 05.09.2023, which is filed herewith as Annexure A/2. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1, in her own statement, admitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 were born from of wedlock from her first husband, as stated in paragraph 12 of her testimony. A copy of the statement given by respondent No. 1 before the learned Family Court is annexed herewith as Annexure A/3. Furthermore, the respondent No. 1 has not produced any evidence before the learned Family Court regarding her alleged marriage with the present applicant and has also failed to specify the date of such marriage. Moreover, respondent No. 1, in her statement before the learned Family Court, admitted that she had never lodged any report in the police station regarding any assault by her husband or any misconduct by the friends of the present applicant in a drunken condition, and further admitted that she had never resided in Village Banabgoud. The present applicant has clearly stated in his own deposition that he came to know of respondent No. 1 only about one and a half years ago through her brother, and, considering her circumstances, he extended help to her purely out of sympathy. Apart from this, the present applicant never performed any marriage with her. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is bad in the eye of lay and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing the evidence, documents, and statements of both parties, it was established that the respondent No.1, Ganga Thakur and the applicant Krishna Thakur were married on 05.01.2019 under the Chudi Pratha, lived together in Dhamtari as husband and wife, and from their relationship, daughter Ku. Ananya Thakur was born. The applicant could not disprove the documentary evidence (Mother and Child Protection Card and Birth Certificate), and therefore, the Court held that the applicant is to be treated as a “wife” under Section 125 CrPC, and Ku. Ananya as the applicant’s legitimate child. Furthermore, the Family Court found that Ganga Thakur is unable to maintain herself, and the applicant Krishna Kumar Thakur has neglected to provide for her and the two children—Vinay Kumar (treated as his son) and Ananya Thakur (his biological daughter). 7 Since he is healthy and capable of earning, it is his legal and moral duty to support them. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that they are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal