1 2025:CGHC:51664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1257 of 2025 Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Salikram Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o 2/17 And 18, Near Slaughter House, Behind Supela Thana, New Krishna Nagar, Supela Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Shri Satish Sharma, Aged About 49 Years R/o M.I.G. 1/896, Hudco, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /10/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in MJC (Criminal) No.1005/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent 2 and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that 3. The applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a direction to the applicant to pay Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent was married to the non-applicant on 20.11.2000 as per Hindu customs at Durg, and from their wedlock, a son named Ayushman Kumar Sharma was born, who is now an adult. After marriage, the applicant and his mother allegedly subjected the respondent to cruelty over household issues and dowry-related matters, forcing her to live separately at her parental home since June 2002. The applicant filed a divorce petition, which was dismissed on 02.02.2005. In 2014, the respondent discovered that the applicant had illegally married another woman, Kamna, and adopted a girl child named Disha alias Anushka Sharma by submitting a joint affidavit before the Family Court. It was also alleged that he fraudulently transferred joint property in his mother’s name. The respondent, currently unemployed, stated that the applicant earns approximately Rs.50,000/- per month as an accountant and around Rs.1,00,000/- per month from land dealings, and therefore sought maintenance in line with his standard of living. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations as alleged by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the 3 parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent, while serving as a government employee, was convicted in a bribery case and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, leading to her dismissal from service in 2019. He further submits that after a gap of five years, she filed the present maintenance application, clearly as an afterthought to claim undue financial benefit from a voidable marriage. It is undisputed that she has been living separately since June 2002 and filed the application only in 2024 before the Family Court, Durg. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the evidence and documents placed on record. It overlooked the fact that the Petitioner earns only Rs.5,000–6,000/- per month and also bears his mother’s medical expenses. The marriage between the parties was never consummated as the respondent refused physical relations, rendering the marriage voidable, and a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending. Further, the birth of a child in 2001 despite non-consummation raises serious doubts, clearly showing that the respondent suppressed material facts and misled the applicant and his family. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 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 the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance, observing the fact that the marriage between the respondent and the applicant has not been declared null and void, nor has any divorce been granted. Therefore, the respondent remains the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The respondent was compelled to live separately for valid reasons. Although she had a source of income earlier, it ceased after 2019. On the other hand, the applicant has a stable monthly income of around Rs.30,000– 35,000/-. Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent is entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil