1 2026:CGHC:729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 428 of 2022 Khamhan Verma S/o Bholaram Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Matra, Post Parasbod, Tahsil And Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Santoshi Verma W/o Khamhan Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Matra, Post Parasbod, Tahsil And Police Station Saja District Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Neha Verma D/o Khamhan Verma Aged About 8 Years, through her natural guardian i.e. Mother namely, Santosh Verma, R/o Village Matra, Post Parasbod, Tahsil And Police Station Saja District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.08 11:03:43 +0530 2 revision and the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) passed in Cr.M.J.C. No. 91/2021, CNR:- CGBT 040001352021, may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month each. It is submitted that the application was filed on the ground that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of one Bhavani and that their Chhod-Chhutti was performed. It was further stated that the applicant herein was previously married to three ladies and that their Chhod-Chhutti was also performed. Thereafter, as per their custom, the applicant allegedly performed Chudi- Shadi with respondent No. 1. It is alleged that for a period of one year the applicant properly maintained respondent No. 1, but thereafter he started ill-treating her and ultimately she was thrown out of the matrimonial house by the applicant. It is further averred that the applicant owns 1½ acres of agricultural land and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from other sources, whereas the respondents have no source of income and, therefore, are entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month each. 4. The applicant herein filed a reply to the said application and categorically denied all the allegations. It was specifically denied that the applicant had legally married respondent No. 1 or that he ever ill-treated her. It was averred that the applicant had purchased 2 acres of land in the name of respondent No. 1, out of which she has sold 80 dismals of land, and the remaining land is still in her possession, which she is cultivating. Apart from this, her father and brother possess sufÏcient agricultural land and 3 are businessmen. Thus, respondent No. 1 has sufÏcient means of her own and is not entitled to any maintenance. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 used to ill-treat the applicant and his children born out of his previous marriage and that she herself left the matrimonial house without any just cause and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. 5. Vide impugned order dated 04.03.2022, the learned Family Court held that respondent No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant herein and that both the applicant and respondent No. 1 have sufÏcient means of earning. 6. The learned Trial Court further held that respondent No. 1 filed various complaints against the applicant after four years of leaving the matrimonial house, and therefore it can be inferred that the said complaints were filed only to create a ground for claiming maintenance. On these findings, the application filed by respondent No. 1 for maintenance was rejected. However, since respondent No. 2 was found to be the daughter of the applicant, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month was awarded in her favour as maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, unjust, unreasonable, and illegal, having been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises, and therefore deserves to be set aside. He also submits that the the learned trial Court has accepted the version of the respondents as gospel truth and has completely ignored the version of the applicant without assigning any reasons, and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that once it was found that respondent No. 1 was residing separately without any sufÏcient cause and had taken 4 respondent No. 2 along with her, the applicant could not be compelled to pay maintenance to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that, as per its own findings, respondent No. 1 has sufÏcient means of earning, and therefore there was no justification for directing the applicant to pay maintenance to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, having held that the applicant had purchased 2 acres of land in favour of respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 1 is cultivating the same and earning sufÏciently therefrom, ought to have appreciated that the applicant has already discharged his moral obligations towards his daughter, and therefore the applicant cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by again directing payment of maintenance in favour of respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant has very limited sources of income and has to maintain other dependent family members, and therefore the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, unsustainable, and therefore liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting 5 interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek