1 2025:CGHC:11166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 198 of 2024 Chhatrapal Sahu S/o Ram Sharan Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kaungiya Khurd, Post Kaungiya Kala, P.S. Saja, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi Sahu W/o Chhatrapal Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Shri Lochan Sahu, Karanja Bhilai, Kanchanpur, Ward No. 18, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Dekeshwari Sahu D/o Chhatrapal Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Sahu, R/o C/o Shri Lochan Sahu, Karanja Bhilai, Kanchanpur, Ward No. 18, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents: None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant, heard finally. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Durg in case no. 1421 of 2022, whereby the learned court has allowed the application in part filed by the respondent no. 1 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2 3. The case in nutshell is that the applicant and the respondent no. 1 got their marriage solemnized on 10.08.2005 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals at Raipur Chhattisgarh. Out of the said wedlock a girl child/respondent no. 2 was born. Due to some difference the respondent no. 1 started living separately from applicant since 2007. In 2011 respondent no. 1 filed a case against the applicant under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the applicant was detained in jail for 18 days which finally resulted in acquittal of the applicant on 05.04.2011 by the JMFC Saja district Bemetara. . 4. On appreciation of the findings placed before the concerned Trial Court, the court partly allowed the maintenance application of the respondents by directing the present applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 2500/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- to respondent no. 2. A total of Rs. 3500/- was allowed by the learned Trial court which the applicant has to pay the respondents on a monthly basis. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is perverse in the eye’s of law. Family court has erred by not considering that the respondent no. 1/wife of the applicant is married to some other man whose name is Ramesh Sahu and is continuously residing with him since 2013. To substantiate the fact she placed on record Ex. D/1. In Ex. D/1 President of Gramin Sahu Sangh has given a certificate that the respondent no. 1 has married to Ramesh Sahu in the year 2013 and is residing with him since then. Thus she has remarried. The applicant and the respondents are living separately since 2007. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order placed on record with utmost circumspection. 3 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noteworthy that in any way the document that is Ex. D-1 produced by the learned counsel for the applicant which is a certificate given by the President of Gramin Sahu Sangh in which it is stated that the respondent no. 1 has married to some Ramesh Sahu in the year 2013 and is residing with him since then. But in the considered opinion of this court the document Ex. D/1 is not a valid and effective document to prove that the respondent no. `1 has actually married to some other person after getting separated to the applicant. It is not proved by way of evidence that applicant has married with other person and even it is also not proved that she is residing with other person name Ramesh Sahu.Hence, the responsibility of giving maintenance to the wife and children is still the duty of the husband/applicant. Hence in the considered opinion of this Court the application allowed by the concerned Family Court is not at all perverse and illegal. 8. So far as the question of higher maintenance allowed by the Family court is concerned, the income of the applicant has not been proved. But trial court has held that even if the income of the applicant has not been proved still he has some acres of land and he is a healthy man so, looking to the fact that as per notional income of minimum wages act the amount of Rs. 4000/- was fixed as maintenance to the respondents. 9. This court while looking to the fact that the income of the applicant has not been proved till now, but this is an indisputable fact that the applicant is a healthy man and is having 70 Decimel of agricultural land and the remarriage of wife/respondent no. 1 has not been proved, this court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance application allowed by the family court in part is just and proper looking to the inflation rate 4 10. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, has not committed any illegality in partly allowing the maintenance application of respondents. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 11. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revision being devoid of merits is dismissed and is subsequently disposed of. 12. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza