1 2025:CGHC:40124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 48 of 2024 Smt. Sumanlata Jangde W/o - Shri Ramkripal Jangde Aged About 38 Years Presently Residing At Village- Parsada, P.S.- Chakarbhata, Dist.- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address Village- Mahka, Post- Rahod, P.S.- Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus Ramkripal Jangde S/o Late Puluram Jangde Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 110, Nature City Colony, Uslapur, P.S.- Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. Along with CRR No. 1183 of 2023 Ramkripal Jangde S/o. Late Pulu Ram Jangde, Aged About 60 Years R/o. House No. 110 Nature City Colony, Uslapur, P.S. - Sakri, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus Smt. Suman Lata Jangde W/o. Ramkripal Jangde, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Village Mahaka, Post Rahod, P.S. - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.13 14:07:48 +0530 2 For Applicant :Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant :Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/08/2025 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. Sumanlata Jangde in CRR No. 48/2024. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaslpur vide order dated 07.10.2023, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs. 8,000/- to the wife, Smt. Sumanlata Jangde. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sumanlata Jangde, filed Criminal Revision No. 48/2024, 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, Ramkripal Jangde, filed Criminal Revision No. 1183 of 2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for wife, namely, Smt. Sumanlata Jangde would submits that the order of learned Family Court is based on conjecture and surmises. She 3 further submits that her husband, namely, Ramkripal Jangde in CRR No. 1183/2023 is working in Indian Navy and is posted of Chief Engineer, from his work, he is earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court concerned partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of wife, ignoring the fact that the husband is earning person and he earns of about Rs. 5,00,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has passed maintenance amount is very lower side. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.8,000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, Ms. Anushree Mishra learned counsel appearing for applicant/husband Ramkripal Jangde in CRR No. 1183/2023, would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant/wife is neither the legally wedded wife of the nor is their marriage valid under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as she admitted to having been previously married to two other individuals without obtaining a legal divorce from either. She further submits that under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., only a legally married wife is entitled to receive maintenance. In the case of “Bakulabai vs. Gangaram, 1988 I MPWN 83 (SC)”, page no. 239, the Court held that mere prolonged cohabitation does not establish a legal marriage, especially when the husband of the non-applicant is still living. In such circumstances, the non-applicant/wife is not entitled 4 to maintenance. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set-aside/reduced suitably. 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 Smt. Sumanlata Jangde in CRR No. 48/2024 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 07.10.2023, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and further ordered to bear Rs. 1,000/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Sumanlata Jangde, filed Criminal Revision No. 48/2024, 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, Ramkripal Jangde, filed Criminal Revision No. 1183/2023, 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. 8,000/- per month to the wife/applicant, namely, 5 Smt. Sumanlata Jangde in CRR No. 48/2024. 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. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti