1 2025:CGHC:57233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1427 of 2025 Ramchandra S/o Chamru Aged About 57 Years Caste- Chikawa, R/o RTO Colony, Bishrampur, Post- Bishrampur, P.S. Bishrampur, Tehsil and District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Rajmuni W/o Ramchandra Aged About 52 Years Caste- Chikawa, R/o Village- Civil Dag Post Kusmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil- Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2. Kumari Sushila D/o Ramchandra Aged About 41 Years Caste- Chikawa, R/o Village- Civil Dag Post Kusmi, P.S. Kusmi, Tehsil- Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2025, passed in Execution Case No. 164 of 2025 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., whereby the objections raised by the applicant were rejected and the learned Family Court directed the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.27 11:03:22 +0530 2 applicant/husband to pay arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 65,000/- to the respondents–wife and the daughter. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between respondent No. 1, Rajmuni (wife), and the applicant, Ramchandra (husband), was solemnized in the year 1980. After residing together for about one year, the wife left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and began living at her mother’s house, where her sister and brother-in-law also resided. It is alleged that applicant No. 1 developed an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, and out of this relationship, respondent No. 2, Sushila, was born. The respondents had originally filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/1987 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court decided the matter vide order dated 24.09.1987, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 150/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- to the daughter. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/1999, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month each, and it was directed that the daughter would be entitled to maintenance till attaining majority. As respondent No. 1 (wife) was living in adultery, her entitlement to maintenance was terminated vide order dated 15.03.2005 in M.J.C. No. 204/2003, and the applicant was discharged from further liability. The said order was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 26.08.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 144/2005. Thus, the wife was entitled to maintenance only up to 15.03.2005. The Family Court held that respondent No. 1 (wife) was entitled to maintenance from 19.01.1987 to 11.03.2002, i.e., 182 months @ Rs. 150/- per month (Rs. 27,300/-), and from 11.03.2002 to 15.03.2005, i.e., 36 months @ Rs. 500/- per month (Rs. 18,000/-), totaling Rs. 45,300/-. The Family Court further held that 3 respondent No. 2 (daughter) was entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 100/- per month as per order dated 24.09.1987 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/1987, which was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month vide order dated 11.03.2002 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/1999, till attaining majority. Vide order dated 19.12.2002 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 39/2002, she was held not entitled to maintenance from 01.07.2002 onwards, having attained majority. Thus, she was entitled to Rs. 18,000/- (182 months @ Rs. 100/-) and Rs. 1,500/- (3 months @ Rs. 500/-), totaling Rs. 19,700/-. 3. Based on the above findings, the Family Court determined that the respondents were entitled to a total sum of Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. 45,300 + Rs. 19,700) from the applicant Ramchandra, and accordingly allowed the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. to that extent. The respondents have suppressed the material fact that the applicant has already paid a substantial portion of the maintenance amount, totalling Rs. 38,594/- from time to time since the original order. The applicant possesses receipts and proof of such payments. The Family Court erred in not deducting these payments while calculating the arrears, resulting in an inflated and excessive demand. In compliance with the order dated 29.07.2025, directing payment of arrears amounting to Rs. 65,000/-, the applicant/ husband, on 04.08.2025, duly paid the said amount to the respondents through State Bank of India Cheque No. 116825 for Rs. 45,000/- and Cheque No. 116826 for Rs. 19,700/-. Thus, the entire arrears as directed by the Family Court have already been cleared, and no further dues remain payable by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled law, facts, and evidence on record, causing irreparable loss to the applicant and resulting 4 in a miscarriage of justice. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No. 1 (wife) was living in adultery, which legally dis entitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Her entitlement had ceased vide judicial order dated 15.03.2005, which was affirmed on 26.08.2006. The Family Court failed to examine the applicant’s objections, evidence of the wife’s misconduct, and his bona fide inability to pay. This Hon’ble Court, in Resham Lal Dewangan v. Suman Dewangan, has held that a wife living in adultery is disqualified from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court ignored the binding findings recorded in M.J.C. No. 204/2003 and Criminal Revision No. 144/2005, whereby the wife was held disentitled to maintenance beyond 15.03.2005. The learned Family Court erred in computing arrears for a period when respondent No. 2 (daughter) had already attained majority and was not entitled to maintenance after 01.07.2002. The learned Family Court mechanically calculated arrears without proper verification of payments already made by the non-applicant from time to time from his salary. The respondents suppressed the material fact of prior maintenance payments, and the Family Court failed to consider such payments, resulting in double recovery. The learned Family Court failed to restrict the claim of respondent No. 2 (daughter) to the legally permissible period and wrongly computed arrears beyond 01.07.2002. The learned Family Court erred in permitting recovery of Rs. 65,000/- despite prior judicial orders stopping maintenance to respondent No. 1 and without deducting amounts already paid by the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., arrears can be recovered only when the applicant willfully neglects or refuses to pay, which is not the case here. The applicant has already complied with the order dated 29.07.2025 by 5 paying the entire sum of Rs. 65,000/- through cheques dated 04.08.2025; hence no further recovery or coercive action is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti