1 2026:CGHC:2992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 101 of 2026 Tularam Nirmalkar S/o Shri Mahettar Nirmalkar Aged About 52 Years By Caste- Dhobi, R/o Mahaveer Chowk Ward No. 06, Bhakhara, Tahsil- Bhakhara, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Ashakiran Nirmalkar W/o Shri Tularam Nirmalkar Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Dhobi, R/o Vishram Nagar Thelkabod Kanker, Tahsil- Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 38/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the second marriage of the parties was taken place on 15.01.2023 at Vishrampur Kanker as per the custom prevailing in the society. The Respondent/wife has moved an RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance on 03.07.2023 which has been partly allowed and the present applicant has been directed to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. The present applicant had preferred a petition before the learned Family Court Dhamtari under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage null and void on 07.08.2023 which was registered as Civil Suit no. 84-A/2023 and the said case was allowed on 07.12.2024 and the marriage between the applicant and respondent dated 15.01.2023 was declared to be null and void, against the said judgment and decree the respondent-wife has preferred an appeal before this Court registered as FA(MAT) no. 27/2025 in which notice has been issued to the present applicant and the same is pending for adjudication. 4. The averment in the maintenance application of the respondent/wife before the family court is that, on 15.01.2023 the respondent and the applicant got married, after which the respondent began residing in her in-laws' house along with the applicant and his two daughters from applicant's first marriage namely Nutan Nirmalkar, aged about 20 years and Bhumika Nirmalkar aged about 18 years. The respondent had been informed about the applicant's previous marriage and both daughters were also informed about the applicant marrying the respondent. That the respondent was taking medicine because of her condition of getting tension in little things and she was told that nothing will happen after marriage by the applicant's daughters so she agreed with the marriage. But after two months of the marriage applicant's daughters started harassing the respondent by saying that her mental 3 condition is not good and she is mentally unstable and they also told her to bring Rs. 10 lakh from her parents then only they will keep her with them. Thereafter she was ousted from the house on 15.06.2023 by saying that she should bring the money. The further averment is that after she was ousted from the house she resided in Sakhi One Stop Centre Dhamtari for three days after that she filed a complaint at P.S. Bhakara, Distt. Dhamtari because it was family matter she was advised to move the family court after that she is residing in her parents' house, she does not have any source of income and is totally dependent on her parents whereas the applicant runs a tent house shop and has bolero and pickup vehicle as well as two story house & godown from which he earns about 70-80 thousand rupees per month therefore prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 5. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the marriage between the applicant and respondent is void ab-initio because the 4 respondent is already married with one Lekhram Nilmarkar and deceived the applicant by not informing him about the marriage, moreover, the first marriage of the respondent has not been dissolved therefore she is not entitled for nay maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar