1 2026:CGHC:5543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 650 of 2024 Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Bhauram Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Govt. School, Bahtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Gouri Bai Yadav W/o Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Devrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ujjawal Yadav (Minor) S/o Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged About 9 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gouri Bai Yadav, Wife Of Krishna Kumar Yadav, R/o Village Devrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Lav Yadav (Minor) S/o Krishna Kumar Yadav Aged About 6 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gouri Bai Yadav, Wife Of Krishna Kumar Yadav, R/o Village Devrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for setting aside KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 363/2020 or in the alternative, the maintenance amount may be reduced. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants (wife and two minors children) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the non-applicant No. 1 and ₹5,000/- each to the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, totaling ₹20,000/- per month. The applicant solemnized marriage with non- applicant No. 1 on 21.01.2011 according to Hindu customs, and thereafter she resided with the applicant as his wife in the matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock, non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. It is alleged by non-applicant No. 1 that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members started harassing and torturing her in connection with dowry demands, failed to take proper care of the non-applicants and continued to demand dowry, due to which non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home and began residing with non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 at her parental house. The Non-applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income for her livelihood, whereas the applicant is stated to be working as a private doctor earning about ₹30,000/- per month and also owning agricultural land. On these grounds, they filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance as stated above. 3. After service of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and contending that the Non-applicant No. 1 used to 3 quarrel without any reason and left the matrimonial home on her own, and that she is capable of maintaining herself. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of her application. 4. The learned Family Court, after examining the witnesses, recording evidence and framing the issues, partly allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay ₹7,500/- per months (₹3,500/- to Non-applicant No. 1 and ₹2,000/- each to Non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3). Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. It is contended that Non-applicant No. 1 is already the legally wedded wife of one Yogesh Kumar Yadav and, without obtaining a valid decree of divorce from him, she cannot claim maintenance from the present applicant. Therefore, she does not fall within the definition of a “legally wedded wife” under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., which is evident from her own deposition (Annexure A-2). It is further submitted that the parents of Non-applicant No. 1, in their depositions (Annexure A-3), have stated that she is engaged in tailoring work, is capable of maintaining herself, and does not wish to reside with the applicant, which shows that she is living separately by her own choice. The Non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Annexure A-4). It is also submitted that the applicant always made sincere efforts to maintain matrimonial harmony, but she refused to live with him. The 4 applicant has the responsibility of maintaining three children from his first legally wedded wife and is not in a financial position to pay maintenance to Non-applicant No. 1. Moreover, due to continuous harassment and mental cruelty by Non-applicant No. 1, the applicant suffered a brain hemorrhage in 2019 and has been undergoing treatment in various hospitals, leaving him physically and financially incapable of paying maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that she is residing separately without sufÏcient reason. 6. It is further submitted that the applicant had filed I.A. No. 1/2024 seeking stay of the Family Court’s order, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already stayed the maintenance awarded to non- applicant No. 1. It was further directed that, considering the quantum of maintenance and the profession of non-applicant No. 1, a sum of ₹3,000/- per month each be paid to Non-applicant Nos. 2 (Ujjawal Yadav) and 3 (Lav Yadav) instead of ₹2,000/- each, while the maintenance awarded to Non-applicant No. 1 shall remain stayed. In view of these facts, the applicant prays that the impugned order be quashed and the revision be allowed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, the pleadings of the parties, and the evidence adduced before the learned Family Court, it appears that the learned Family Court has considered the marital relationship between the parties, the birth of non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 from the wedlock and the duty of the 5 applicant to maintain his minor children. However, so far as non- applicant No. 1 is concerned, the material available on record, including her own deposition and the evidence regarding her independent earning capacity, required deeper scrutiny, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. The findings relating to maintenance of the minor children are based on proper appreciation of facts and law. 9. Considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance awarded to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 is just, proper, and in consonance with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the liability of a father to maintain his minor children is absolute. However, in respect of non-applicant No. 1, the evidence regarding her non- dissolution of her earlier marriage, earning capacity and the surrounding circumstances make the grant of maintenance to her unsustainable at this stage. 10. The interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in I.A. No. 1/2024, on 04.09.2024 whereby grant of maintenance to non- applicant No. 1-wife was stayed and the amount of maintenance for the children was enhanced to ₹3,000/- each, appears to balance the equities and deserves to be afÏrmed on merits. 11. Accordingly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is modified to the extent that the maintenance granted to non- applicant No. 1 stands set aside. The Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 shall be entitled to maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month each, as 6 directed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 04.09.2024. 12. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal