1 2025:CGHC:34945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 113 of 2021 Ravendra Shriwas S/o Firtu Shriwas, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Singhauri, Bemetara, Ward No. 13, Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Laxmi Bai W/o Ravendra Shriwas, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sunwartala, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Usha @ Upasna W/o Ravendra Shriwas, Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Laxmi Bai, R/o Village Sunwartala, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.304/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent had previously settled a maintenance application on September 14, 2019, by agreeing not to harass the respondent. However, he breached this agreement by taking another woman, Usha Verma, to Pune and marrying her while still living with the respondent. The respondents claim that after staying in Pune for three to four months, the applicant brought Usha Verma to his home in Sindhouri, Bemetara, where she was accepted by his family. Usha Verma started living with the applicant and respondent No.1, and the applicant and his parents began physically and mentally abusing the respondent No.1, treating her like a servant and denying her basic necessities. The respondents further claim that respondent No.1 tolerated the abuse for the sake of her young child, but the situation worsened over time. To save herself and her child, the respondent no.1 left her matrimonial home in 2018, before Navratri, and went to her parental home, where she has been staying for the past 10-12 months. During this time, the applicant has not taken any interest in the respondents' well-being. The respondents are currently dependent on their brother and sister-in-law for support. The respondent No.1 is unable to work due to her childcare responsibilities and has no source of income. In contrast, the applicant works as a mason under a contractor and earns around Rs.4,000-5,000/- per week. He also owns a pucca house, and his 3 mother works as a laborer, making him financially capable. The respondents request a total maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- per month from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations as alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No.1 (wife) is living separately without a valid reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant (husband). Furthermore, the Family Court overlooked that the applicant (husband) is willing to keep the respondents (wife and children) with him and provide for their maintenance, but the respondent No. 1 (wife) refuses to live with him. He further submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the applicant (husband) has made genuine efforts to reconcile with the respondents (wife and children), but the respondent No. 1 (wife) has declined to live with him, thereby forfeiting her claim to maintenance. He also submits that the maintenance amount awarded is excessive considering the applicant's limited income, and therefore, the order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside or quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 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 respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicant is living separately due to the applicant act of taking another wife. Therefore, the respondent’s attempt to justify his actions by stating in a stamp paper that the respondent will not leave his house is unjustified. In fact, taking another wife constitutes cruelty towards the respondent, entitling her to claim maintenance from the applicant. So far as quantum of maintenance amount is concerned, after considering the social and economical status of both the parties, the Family Court granted maintenance as aforementioned. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil