1 2025:CGHC:38907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 143 of 2023 Shivcharan Singh S/o Late Jagsai Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Siriyakhoh, Chowki Nagpur, P.S. Pandi, Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Savita Singh W/o Shivcharan Singh Aged About 45 Years Caste Gond, R/o Ward No. 18, Poorabpara, Village Siriyakhoh, Chowki Nagpur, P.S. Pondi, Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.17/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2 filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant's marriage to the respondent took place about a year ago in Village Poorvapara, Siriakhoh, under Hindu customs, and they have three sons and one daughter together. The applicant has been continuously abusing and physically assaulting her for two years and has abandoned her. He has also separated two of their sons, who are unemployed and married. Moreover, the applicant has taken another woman, Ramwati, as his wife. The respondent is currently living at her parents' home in Siriakhoh, but since her parents have passed away, she is facing maintenance issues. She is ill, unable to work, and has no source of income. The applicant works as a pump operator in the PHED department of the Chhattisgarh government and earns a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/-. Additionally, he owns five acres of fertile land in Siriakhoh, generating an annual income of Rs. 2 lakhs, and also earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from vegetable and produce business. The respondent claims she needs Rs. 10,000/- per month for her maintenance and medical treatment. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the wife is capable of maintaining herself and doesn't need maintenance, further the maintenance amount awarded is excessive and not based on the wife's actual needs. He further submits that the Court didn't properly assess the applicant’s earning capacity and property, she deserted the applicant, who is facing difficulties in life. He also submits that the applicant is often sick, and the wife is living with their adult married sons. The order contradicts the principles of Section 125 of CrPC. Furthermore, the wife used to beat and expel the applicant from her maternal home. The wife has sufficient means, while the applicant earns barely Rs. 17,000-18,000/- per month and has responsibilities for their minor children, old and sick mother, and mentally weak brother. Hence, the Family Court's order is bad, illegal, improper, and against settled law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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.5,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that during cross-examination, the respondent was not challenged regarding the applicant's claim that he had taken Ramwati as his second wife. The applicant admitted in paragraph 4 8 of his cross-examination that he had taken Ramwati as his second wife and in paragraph 9 that he used to physically assault the respondent. This clearly establishes that the applicant himself was responsible for the physical abuse and had taken Ramwati as his second wife. In these circumstances, the respondent has sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is unable to maintain herself, therefore, the Family Court concluded that she is entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be higher side. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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