1 2025:CGHC:58423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1004 of 2022 Uttam Das Mahant S/o Shri Adhari Das Mahant Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Limgaon, Police Station Urga, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Present Address Kabirdham , Dewatan Mohalla, Near Hasdev River, Police Station And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Santosh Bai Mahant W/o Uttam Das Mahant Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Gandapali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rohan Das Mahant (Now Major) S/o Shri Uttam Das Mahant Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Gandapali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Korba, 2 District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.75/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No.1 were married in 1999 and have two sons. respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant committed a second marriage with her younger sister in 2015, subjected her to abuse and assault, failed to provide basic necessities, threatened to kill her, and ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home about two years ago. She claims to be uneducated, burdened with loans of Rs.2 lakhs, solely maintaining the children, and stated that the applicant earns around Rs.40,000/- per month as a government employee along with agricultural income, therefore seeking Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant denied all allegations except marriage and children, claiming he never remarried, never assaulted her, and that she voluntarily stayed at her parental home for long periods. He asserted that he repeatedly attempted reconciliation, approached social institutions, filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which were decreed in his favour in 2014, and later obtained a divorce decree in 2019 on the ground that she deserted him without sufficient cause. He further asserted that 3 she forcefully entered his house in 2018 due to which he shifted to a rented accommodation, that he pays rent and loan EMIs, and that she has her own income from stitching and agriculture. Despite the evidence and prior court findings of desertion against her, the trial court partly allowed her maintenance claim and granted Rs.4,500/- per month, leading to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Family Court, Korba is illegal, improper and unsustainable. The court erred in accepting that the wife is living separately for sufficient reasons, while completely ignoring the applicant’s specific pleadings that no physical or mental cruelty was ever committed upon her and that her allegations were unsubstantiated. He further submits that the Family Court further failed to appreciate that the findings of the civil court both in the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and in the subsequent decree of divorce categorically held that the wife had deserted the applicant without any sufficient cause. These findings have attained finality as no appeal was filed. Despite this, the trial court wrongly granted her maintenance from the date of the application, overlooking the fact that interim maintenance was already being paid during the pendency of the proceedings. He also submits that the trial Court also ignored crucial facts that the wife has been living separately for over 11 years on her own will, had forcefully entered the applicant’s house, threatened him, and compelled him to live in a rented accommodation. In light of her 4 long-standing desertion without sufficient reason and her non- compliance with previous court orders, the conclusion granting maintenance is perverse and contrary to settled legal principles. 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 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 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1, towards maintenance observing that the evidence on record clearly established that the respondent-wife was residing separately from the applicant for sufficient and justified reasons, and that she was unable to maintain herself as well as the minor child out of her limited income. The Court further noted that the applicant, being employed in the Health Department and earning a regular salary, besides having agricultural income, had sufficient means to maintain the respondents but had neglected and refused to do so. While deciding the issues framed under Section 125 CrPC relating to (i) whether the applicant was residing separately for 5 sufficient cause, (ii) whether she was unable to maintain herself, and (iii) whether the respondent had sufficient means yet failed to maintain her, the Court found, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, that the respondent’s conduct, including allegations of cruelty and his subsequent remarriage, justified the applicant’s separate residence. Accordingly, the Family Court held the respondent No.1 liable for maintenance. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he is residing with the applicant (his father), who is already maintaining him and bearing all his educational and living expenses. The mother did not deny these facts, and even the respondent No.1 himself stated that he lives and studies under his father's care. Since he is not dependent on the mother and is already being fully supported by the father, he is not entitled to claim separate maintenance. Therefore, the maintenance application of respondent No. 2 was rejected. 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. 6 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