1 2025:CGHC:47306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 524 of 2020 Shivnarayan S/o Shri Jagsai Aged About 52 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bhakura, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Sampati Aged About 38 Years (Shivnarayan Has Been Falsely Shown By The Respondents Before The Learned Court Below As Husband Of The Respondent No. 01 Sampati) R/o Village Bhakura, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Kavita Aged About 19 Years (Shivnarayan Has Been Falsely Shown By The Respondents Before The Learned Court Below As Father Of The Respondent No. 2 Ku. Kavita), R/o Village Bhakura, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents : None. 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 08.11.2019 passed by the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:43:30 +0530 2 learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.13/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 600/- per month to respondent No.1 and rejected the application with respect to respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 19.01.2018, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 13/2016. The respondents' case, in brief, is that approximately 20 years ago, respondent No.1 married the applicant according to tribal customs. From this wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. Subsequently, the applicant entered into a second marriage under the local custom known as Dhuku and began residing separately with the second woman. In a Panchayat meeting, the applicant agreed to provide maintenance to the respondents but failed to do so thereafter, having allegedly deserted them for about one year. The respondents further claimed that the applicant is physically fit, works as a mason (Rajmistri), engages in agriculture, and earns approximately Rs.20,000–25,000 per month. Additionally, he allegedly earns Rs.3–4 lakhs annually from stone-breaking contracts. On these grounds, the respondents claimed Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance Rs.2,500 each for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. 3. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations. He contended that respondent no.1 was married about 17 years ago to one Khamhan, 3 with whom no divorce ever took place, and hence she remains legally wedded to him. Therefore, the applicant denied being the husband of respondent No.1 or the father of respondent No.2. He further submitted that he is married to one Rukhmani and has six children with her, denying any relationship with the respondents. He claimed that the application was filed solely to harass him and should be dismissed. By order dated 08.11.2019, the Learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), partly allowed the application. The claim of respondent No.2, Ku. Kavita, was rejected. However, the application of respondent No.1, Sampati, was allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay her Rs.600 per month as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said order suffers from legal infirmities and is contrary to the settled principles of law, thereby warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order dated 08.11.2019 has been passed without proper consideration of the material available on record. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The applicant is neither the husband of respondent no.1 nor the father of respondent No.2. In the absence of any legally established marital or paternal relationship, the applicant cannot be held liable to pay maintenance under the relevant provisions of law. The applicant has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court has not taken into account the financial incapacity of 4 the applicant while passing the impugned order. The applicant is presently unemployed and is not in a position to comply with the maintenance order. Even otherwise, the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of respondent No.1 is excessive and disproportionate. The quantum of maintenance granted is not commensurate with the standard of living previously maintained by respondent No.1, nor has any justified requirement been established to support such an amount. 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 respondent No.01, Sampati, has stated that she has been living with the applicant Shivnarayan, as his wife for approximately 20 years. However, about three years ago, the applicant, Shivnarayan, assaulted her and told her that he would no longer keep her with him. As a result, she has been residing at her parental home along with her daughter, respondent No.02, Kumari Kavita. Therefore, respondent No.01, Sampati, has sufficient reason to live separately from her husband, the applicant, Shivnarayan. On the basis of the above findings, it is concluded that respondent No.01, Sampati, is the wife of the applicant, Shivnarayan, and that she has sufficient grounds to live separately from him. Hence, respondent No.01, Sampati, is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, the applicant, Shivnarayan. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 5 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