1 2025:CGHC:32626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 95 of 2021 Lekhram S/o Devcharan Yadu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Telga, Post Anandgaon, Tahsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)................(Revisioner), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Hema W/o Lekhram, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Telga, Post Anandgaon, Tahsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o. Village Bansa, Post Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)...............(Applicant), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.255/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is undisputed in this case that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The couple has two children from their marital relationship, who are residing with the applicant. After the marriage, the applicant, his parents, and brother used to quarrel with her over small matters, and the applicant would physically abuse her and throw her out of the house. A meeting was held in Yadu Samaj, Dhamdha Raj, where the applicant was counseled, and he kept the respondent with him for 15 days in 2018. However, he again physically abused her and threw her out of the house, taking the children with him by force. The applicant is now living with a woman named Ishwari as his second wife, and the respondent is residing at her parental home. The respondent has no source of income, while the applicant owns 12 acres of irrigated agricultural land, generating an annual income of Rs. 5 lakhs. Additionally, the applicant has 15-20 cattle and buffaloes and earns Rs. 4,000 per day from selling milk, making him a financially capable person. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denied the allegations as alleged against him. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has 3 directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent wife left the applicant's house voluntarily and she did not provide any evidence regarding the applicant's income, making the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500 per month excessive. The applicant has to maintain two children and his elderly parents. Notably, the wife has not made any effort to seek guardianship of the children. He further submits that the Family Court overlooked the document Ex.D-1, an agreement signed on 08.08.2018, which reveals the wife's love affair with Mohit Yadav and her decision to live with him. This contradicts the court's finding that the applicant had solemnized a second marriage with Ishwari Nayak based on the report Ex.P.1 dated July 11, 2019. He also submits that it is well-established that under Section 125 of the CrPC, a wife is not entitled to maintenance, if she lives separately by choice, leads an adulterous life, or divorces by mutual consent. In this case, Ex.D-1 clearly indicates that the wife led an adulterous life and left the applicant without sufficient reason to live with Mohit Yadav. Therefore, the Family Court erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. 4. 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 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the applicant has 8 acres of land and 10 cattle/buffaloes, producing 10 liters of milk, which is sold in Raipur. The applicant admitted to being employed. The land is in the applicant’s father's name, with limited rights for the applicant, as it is shared with his parents, brother, and sister. Given the applicant’s employment, he is considered financially capable, whereas, the respondent’s claim that she works as a contractor was not supported by any documents. There is no evidence that she owns a scooter. It does not appear that the respondent works as a contractor, employing laborers for farming. Hence, the applicant’s claim that the respondent earns a sufficient income from contracting work does not seem true, hence, the Family Court concluded that the respondent has sufficient means to live separately from the applicant which entitled her to maintenance because the applicant has taken another wife. Given the applicant’s limited income, the Family 5 Court granted maintenance as aforementioned, which is not on higher side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil