1 2025:CGHC:8702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 234 of 2025 1 - Gendiya Bai W/o Omkarpuri Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Godwabani, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Omkarpuri S/o Jaipuri Aged About 82 Years R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Godwabani, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court Mungeli District Mungeli, C.G. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 224/2023 whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the respondent had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals prior to 57 years and from their wedlock two sons Dilip and Santosh were born. At present the childrens are married and are living separately with their family. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court Mungeli is completely illegal because the applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent and as per Hindu Marriage Act the applicant is fully entitled for granting any maintenance amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the marriage of the applicant with the respondent was solemnized 57 years ago as per Hindu customs. Their married life gave birth to sons Dilip and Santosh, both of whom are married and living separate household lives. The respondent has performed Chudi (चूड़ी) marriage 40 years ago with Ramkali, resident of village Seoni, district Janjgir Champa and from their married life four children were born who are living with the applicant. The respondent has purchased agricultural land in village Hadaspur in the name of his second wife Ramkali and his son and also works in Mungeli by running a wholesale grocery shop, pickup vehicle and auto. Ever since the respondent has brought Ramkali as his wife, the respondent has not been paying any attention towards the applicant. The respondent earns Rs. 3 5,00,000/- per year from agricultural land, Rs. 3,60,000/- per year from wholesale grocery shop and about Rs. 4,00,000/- per year from pickup vehicle and auto, in this way the respondent earns a total income of Rs. 12,60,000/- per year. On this basis, a request has been made to provide a total amount of Rs 15,000/- per month for the maintenance of the applicant. 6. While accepting the fact of Chudi (चूड़ी) marriage with his wife Ramkali and the birth of four children from her side, the respondent has rejected all other facts. The respondent has stated that the applicant resides with her sons and her maintenance will be taken care of by her sons. The respondent contended that he held a social meeting for the divorce of the applicant and respondent, having provided a permanent house and about 2.00 acres of irrigated agricultural land, apart from this, financial assistance has been provided to the applicant from time to time. 7. it is also an important fact that although the applicant, in her application and in her evidence, has pleaded and given evidence that the respondent has not made any arrangements for her maintenance, but during the argument, it has been accepted by the applicant that she has been in possession of the agricultural land of the respondent and has been doing farming for 30-35 years. On this basis, the evidence of the respondent and the admission made in the final argument of the applicant do not prove that no arrangement has been made by the respondent for 4 the maintenance of the applicant. 8. On the basis of the facts of acceptance put forward in the evidence and arguments of both the parties, on the basis of the evidence and facts revealed that the applicant has been occupying the agricultural land of the non-applicant for 30-35 years and is getting crops and income from it. 9. Therefore, the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) is neither illegal nor perverse and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima