1 2025:CGHC:49613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1210 of 2025 Mohitram Druve S/o Ahiru Aged About 37 Years Jati Baiga, R/o Village Bhedagarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tehsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Mohitram Druve Aged About 35 Years Jati Baiga, R/o Village Bhedagarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tehsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Jayanti D/o Mohitram Druve Aged About 9 Years Through Mother Smt. Kumari Bai, W/o Mohitram Druve, Jati Baiga, R/o Village Bhedagarh, P.S. Kukdur, Tehsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.10.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 19/2023, passed by the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 allowed this revision looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact that the Non- applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and Non-applicant No. 2 is their minor daughter. In the application, the Non-applicants have stated that the marriage of Non-applicant No. 1 with the applicant took place about 18 years ago at Bodla through a mass marriage program organized by the Government at the Anganwadi Centre. Thereafter, a customary marriage ceremony was again performed in her village Bhedagadh as per social customs. From their wedlock, two daughters and one son were born — elder daughter Kumari Bharti (aged about 15 years), son Himesh (aged about 13 years), and younger daughter Kumari Jayanti (Non- applicant No. 2, aged about 9 years). At present, Non-applicant No. 2 resides with Non-applicant No. 1, while the elder daughter and son live with the applicant. The applicant and his family do not allow the children to meet or speak with the Non-applicants. The applicant and his family members used to taunt and harass Non- applicant No. 1 for dowry since the early days of marriage, abusing and assaulting her both physically and mentally. Despite continuous ill-treatment, Non-applicant No. 1 continued to live with the applicant and three children were born from the said wedlock. After the birth of the youngest daughter, Jayanti, the harassment intensified. The applicant began saying that he would perform a second marriage or bring another woman home. Eventually, he acted on his words and brought another woman to their matrimonial 3 home, keeping her in the same room while forcing Non-applicant No. 1 to leave. She then started living with her mother-in-law in a separate room. The applicant maintained illicit relations with the said woman and about four years ago, physically assaulted Non- applicant No. 1 and drove her out of the house. The Non-applicant No. 1 further stated that after the said incident, she has been residing with her mother, Sukhmat Bai Baiga, in the same village along with her daughter (Non-applicant No. 2). On 11.04.2021, at about 8:00 a.m., while she was going to Tirth Kirana Store, the applicant came there, hurled obscene abuses, assaulted her with fists and sticks, and threatened to kill her. Despite living with another woman, the applicant continues to publicly insult, abuse, and assault Non-applicant No. 1 in the village. Regarding the said incident, she lodged an FIR at Police Station Kukdur, registered as Crime No. 34/2021 under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC, which has been charge-sheeted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, and is presently pending. The Non-applicant No. 1 further stated that the applicant’s character is not good and whenever she advised him to mend his conduct, he used to abuse, assault, and threaten her. Earlier, she was also subjected to physical and mental cruelty for dowry. The applicant, after assaulting and abusing her, expelled her from the house. Whenever she tries to return to the matrimonial home with her daughter, the applicant refuses to allow her entry, as he has kept another woman with whom he has illicit relations, and that woman is pregnant. Non-applicant No. 1 has no source of income 4 and is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. She faces great hardship and belongs to the Baiga community. The applicant, on the other hand, is employed as an Assistant Teacher in a Government School at Village Munmuna, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, earning a monthly salary of ₹38,395/-. In addition, he owns about 2.50 acres of irrigated agricultural land in Village Bhedagadh, yielding about ₹2,00,000/- annually, and possesses a three-room ancestral house and a courtyard. Despite being financially well-off, he has neglected and refused to maintain the Non-applicants. Hence, they have prayed that suitable maintenance allowance be granted in their favour from the applicant. 3. In his written reply, the applicant denied all allegations except the admitted facts. He contended that Non-applicant No. 1 has been living with her brother-in-law (sister’s husband) Poonuram of Village Bhedagadh since February 2022, after performing a “Chudi marriage” with him. He further alleged that Non-applicant No. 1’s character was not good even prior to the marriage and that she had illicit relations with said Poonuram before marriage, which he came to know later. When he advised her to correct her conduct and not repeat past mistakes, she started quarreling, assaulting him, and threatening to implicate him in false cases. The applicant stated that he presently lives with his three children and aged parents, whose entire maintenance and medical care are his responsibility. He further claimed that he does not own any agricultural land and barely manages the family’s livelihood through daily wage work. According to him, Non-applicant No. 1 is a healthy woman, capable 5 of maintaining herself and is living comfortably. Hence, he has prayed that the present application for maintenance, being false, baseless, and not maintainable in law, be dismissed. 4. The learned Family Court on the basis of the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application of the non- applicants filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and granted monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2500/- to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2500/- to non- applicant No.2 per month from the date of filing of application, total 5000/- as maintenance. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Family Court, Kabirdham awarding maintenance of ₹2,500/- each to the respondent-wife and her daughter is contrary to the settled principles of law and deserves to be set aside. The Family Court has failed to appreciate the prevailing Baiga Gond customary law, wherein dissolution of marriage and remarriage are governed by recognized tribal customs, according to which a wife can remarry only after her first husband formally divorces her and relinquishes his marital rights. In the present case, the Non-applicant No.1 herself, without any lawful divorce, voluntarily left the applicant’s house and thereafter entered into a “Chudi marriage” with one Poonuram, which is a clear acknowledgment of her second marriage under their tribal custom. The Learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, has completely ignored the evidentiary materials and customary principles that govern such matrimonial relations among the tribal 6 community. It is respectfully submitted that the customary lifestyle and personal laws of the tribal people are protected and are not to be interfered with, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Samatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., and other constitutional precedents recognizing tribal autonomy. The finding of the Family Court that the Non-applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts on record, since the Non-applicant No.1, by her own conduct of deserting the applicant and entering into another relationship, has disentitled herself from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in view of the principle laid down in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahato, wherein it was held that the wife’s right to maintenance is absolute only so long as she is not disqualified. The Non-applicant No.1 is healthy, capable of maintaining herself, and has wilfully withdrawn from the company of the applicant without sufficient cause; therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Hence, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the impugned order be set aside as being contrary to law, facts, and the accepted custom prevailing among the Baiga Gonds. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants before the 7 learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order on 19.06.2025, whereby it has been directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/-per month towards maintenance amount to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2500/-per month to the Non-applicant No.2 (daughter) ( total 5000/- as maintenance) and that order shall be affected from filing of application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal