1 2025:CGHC:25115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 772 of 2017 Mangalchand Dewangan S/o Geetaram, Aged About 30 Years Caste Dewangan, R/o Village Rani Road, Champa, Police Station And Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Preeti Dewangan W/o Mangalchand Dewangan, Aged About 26 Years Caste Dewangan, R/o Line Para, Chhurikala, Police Station And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Purvi Dewangan, D/o Mangalchand Dewangan, Aged About 1 Years Through Mother Preeti Dewangan, W/o Mangalchand Dewangan, Caste Dewangan, R/o Line Para, Chhurikala, Police Station And Tahsil Katgora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.265/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents have stated in their application that the marriage of applicant was performed with respondent No.1 on 13.06.2012 according to Hindu Rites & Rituals. After marriage, the she came to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations and the respondent No. 2 was born from their wedlock. The non- applicants further submitted that right from marriage, the applicant and other in-laws family members were subjected the respondent No. 1 to cruelty and harassment, for which, a social meeting was convened, where the members of society advised her to left her matrimonial house and live with her parents. It is further submitted by the respondents that they are living in the parental house and they are unable to maintain themselves. It is also submitted by the respondents that the applicant is running power loom machine and also having agricultural land, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to the respondent, therefore they filed application for maintenance. 3 4. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply to the application for grant of maintenance and submitted that the respondent No. 1 is living in adultery and she is having illicit relationship with one Ishwar son of Chamru Dewangan of Line Para, Chhurikala. It is further contended by the applicant that they were not subjected the respondent No. 1 to cruelty or harassment. It is specifically contended by the applicant that the non-applicant was admitted before the social regarding her illicit relationship with other person and therefore the members of society have dissolved the marriage between the parties by way of Chhorchhutti. The respondent No. 1 is doing labour work and maintaining herself, though according to decision of social meeting, the applicant has deposited Rs.40,000/- in advance before the members of society and out of which, Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent No. 2 is being paid regularly. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in not considering that the wife (respondent No. 1) is living in adultery, making her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. He further submits that the wife admitted to an illicit relationship, leading to the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent through "Chhorchhutti" (a form of divorce). He also submits that the husband deposited Rs. 40,000/- 4 from which Rs. 1,000/- per month is paid towards maintenance for child, negating the wife's entitlement for maintenance. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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 respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that during the social meeting, the applicant (husband) allegedly gave Rs. 40,000 to the respondent No.1 (wife) for the upbringing of their daughter, but the applicant failed to produce any documents to prove the same. Therefore, the statements made by the applicant and his witnesses are not acceptable. Hence, respondent No. 2 (child) cannot be denied maintenance on this basis. Since the applicant is not providing maintenance to the respondents (wife and child) during their separation, which they are entitled for, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the respondents have successfully proved these points. 5 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil