1 2025:CGHC:58418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1194 of 2022 Ramesh Das Manikpuri Aka Sundar Das Manikpuri S/o Late Santosh Das Manikpuri Aka Premdas Manikpuri Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Thakurkanpa, Gram Panchayat Thakurkanpa, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Lakshmin Bai W/o Ramesh Das Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shanti Nagar Uslapur, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, in the interest of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, their Bangle marriage having been performed on 27.06.2006 according to social norms and traditions. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month, alleging that after nearly ten years of marriage the applicant deserted her and that she is unable to maintain herself. The applicant filed his reply denying the allegations and asserting that he is presently suffering from depression and is unable to work properly due to his medical condition. The learned Family Court, however, after appreciating the material on record, held that the respondent had succeeded in establishing her claim and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance vide order dated 19.10.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is arbitrary and has been passed without proper application of mind, as the Family Court failed to correctly appreciate the evidence on record. It is urged that the respondent, being the second wife, was aware of the Applicant’s subsisting marriage, and therefore, in view of the settled law laid down in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, and afÏrmed in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, she is not legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that 3 the applicant is a married man with children, is the sole breadwinner of his first family, and is presently suffering from depression, due to which he is unable to work and has no stable source of income. Counsel contends that the Family Court erred in fixing the quantum of maintenance without any proof of the Applicant’s income, as no salary documents were produced or proved by the respondent, upon whom the burden lay. It is argued that the Court, proceeding on mere presumptions and a liberal approach, ignored the Applicant’s medical and financial condition and the fact that he never deserted the respondent, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, rightly held that the applicant and the respondent are legally married, their Bangle marriage having been solemnized on 27.06.2006 in accordance with social customs, and that the respondent had successfully established that she was deserted by the applicant after nearly ten years of matrimonial life and was unable to maintain herself. The Family Court further found that the applicant’s bare assertion of suffering from depression and being unable to work was neither supported by any cogent medical evidence nor sufÏcient to absolve him of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Considering the long duration of marriage, the financial needs of the respondent, and the 4 applicant’s ability and legal duty to provide maintenance, the Family Court rightly concluded that the respondent was entitled to monetary support and justifiably awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month by order dated 19.10.2022. The findings of the Family Court are well-reasoned, based on proper evaluation of the material on record. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan