1 2025:CGHC:58422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1125 of 2022 Smt. Rambha Patle W/o Baldev Patle Aged About 32 Years R/o Patanwar Colony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present R/o House Of The Ghanshyam Jangde, Manjhwapara, Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil and, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Baldev Patle S/o Late Ajay Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Patanwar Colony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgar At Present R/o Shop Of Rajdhani Pump Nozal, Transport Nagar Tifra, Badi Parking Parsada, Bilaspur, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .. Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.548/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:15:25 +0530 2 application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 09.10.2003 (wrongly mentioned as 09.10.2013). Four children were born from the wedlock: Ku. Neha Patle (13 years), Ku. Riya Patle (11 years), Lakky Patle (9 years), and Vikky Patle (1 year). The applicant stated that after the birth of the children, the respondent developed an illicit relationship with another woman from Village Chandeli, due to which he began harassing and torturing the applicant and the children. He also threatened to stop living with her and even threatened to kill the applicant and their minor children. On 04.09.2018, the respondent allegedly took the applicant to Mungeli under threat and forcibly obtained her signature on a ?50 stamp paper. Thereafter, he expelled the applicant from the matrimonial home, snatched away the minor children, and the applicant has since been living in rented accommodation. The applicant has no source of income. The respondent is engaged in the business of pump and nozzle sales and earns approximately Rs.40,000–50,000 per month. Thus, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance. The respondent filed his reply denying all allegations and asserting that the applicant is not entitled to any maintenance, and that the application deserved dismissal. The Family Court framed issues, recorded the evidence of both parties, and by the impugned order dated 10.08.2022, dismissed the applicant’s maintenance application without properly considering the facts and material on record. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents produced by the applicant. The respondent abandoned the applicant without any reasonable cause, due to which she is facing severe hardship and has no source of income for her livelihood. Therefore, maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month ought to have been granted. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is running a pump and nozzle business earning ?40,000– 50,000 per month and also owns agricultural land in Village Shitalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, and Village Sukhatal, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli. Hence, the respondent is financially capable of maintaining the applicant. Despite having four children, the respondent developed an illicit physical relationship with another woman, due to which he continuously misbehaved with, harassed, and tortured the applicant and the children, even threatening to kill them. Copies of medical documents issued by CIMS Bilaspur, showing the relationship between the respondent and his second wife Manjula Patre, are filed as Annexure A-2. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that without obtaining a divorce, the respondent solemnized a second marriage and resides with the other woman at Patanwar Colony, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act, yet dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without granting any maintenance. The applicant is a 32-year-old, uneducated, poor woman with no means of livelihood. This crucial aspect was overlooked by the learned Family Court while rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., contrary to the intent and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both parties had executed an agreement, which did not specify any maintenance arrangement. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider this agreement and 4 illegally rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent committed misbehavior and cruelty towards the applicant without any fault on her part. Despite this, and despite maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman, he expelled the applicant from the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence produced by the applicant, making the rejection of her Section 125 Cr.P.C. application illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. The learned Family Court had earlier directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs.1,000 per month in favour of the applicant after considering the material on record, and the respondent had complied with this order. However, this fact was ignored while passing the impugned contrary order, rendering it unsustainable in law. 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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 present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record be transmitted to the Family Court concerned within a week for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti