1 CGHC010037542025 2026:CGHC:34873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 267 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar Anant S/o Mayaram Anant Aged About 41 Years The Then Posted As Army No. 15417992X, Rank HAV/ORA C/o Military Hospital, Chennai, Defence Colony Road, Chennai, Tamlinadu ( Presently Posted At 356 Field Hospital, District - West Siang, Arunchal Pradesh, Pin 903356 C/o 99 APO) … Applicant versus 1. Jyoti Anant W/o Ramesh Kumar Anant Aged About 25 Years R/o. Dehlwadih, Tehsil Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prateek Anant S/o Ramesh Kumar Anant Aged About 4 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Jyoti Anant, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Ramesh Kumar Anant. R/o. Dehlwadih, Tehsil Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ashvim Anant S/o Ramesh Kumar Anant Aged About 2 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Jyoti Anant, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Ramesh Kumar Anant. R/o. Dehlwadih, Tehsil Katghora, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Animesh Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.11 11:40:50 +0530 2 Also heard Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: “(i) quash and set aside the order dated 25/10/2024 passed by the Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba, C.G. in Criminal MJC No.82/2019, in the interest of justice. (ii) call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for proper decision of the case. (iii) pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem /t in the facts of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2014 The basic facts are that after the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was <xed, the applicant, who was posted outside the State of Chhattisgarh, obtained 61 days' leave for the purpose of his marriage. After the marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2014, the marriage could not be consummated on the <rst night, i.e., 19.05.2014, as respondent No. 1 stated that she was undergoing her menstrual cycle. From the very <rst day, respondent No. 1 appeared to be unhappy with the marriage and showed no aBection towards the applicant. Consequently, on 20.05.2014, she created a ruckus in the house by falsely alleging that her earrings had been stolen. In order to pacify her and make her comfortable, the applicant's father (the father-in-law of respondent No. 1) purchased an earring worth Rs. 30,000/- and gifted it to her. However, on 21.05.2014, the same earring, which had allegedly been stolen, was found in the possession of her mother when she herself 3 showed it to the applicant. On the subsequent nights of 21/05/2014 and 22/05/2014, the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 also could not be consummated, as respondent No. 1 again stated that she was undergoing her menstrual cycle. Thereafter, the applicant resumed his duties at Military Hospital, Jammu, on 23/05/2014. Meanwhile, on 24/05/2014, respondent No. 1 made a false, fabricated, and serious allegation of rape against her brother-in-law (the applicant's elder brother). Thereafter, she went to her parental home along with her parents, and her father refused to send her back, stating that he would do so only after the applicant was allotted a government quarter. However, ignoring the aforesaid incident and considering the future of the parties, an application for registration of marriage was submitted, and the marriage registration certi<cate was issued on 24/08/2014. On the strength of the said certi<cate, the applicant was allotted a government quarter at 166 Military Hospital, Jammu, on 25/09/2014. The applicant was making arrangements to bring his wife to the aforesaid government quarter by purchasing all necessary household articles. However, before he could complete the arrangements, respondent No. 1, along with her father and maternal uncle, suddenly arrived at the Government Quarter at Military Hospital, Jammu, on 25/12/2014, without any prior intimation or information. The father of respondent No. 1 stayed there till 15/01/2015, while her maternal uncle stayed for another week. On 18/01/2015, respondent No. 1, i.e., the wife of the applicant, complained of stomach pain and swelling in her legs, whereupon the applicant took her to a Gynecologist at Military Hospital, Jammu. During the examination, it was revealed that she was pregnant, and the ultrasound report indicated that she was approximately <ve months pregnant, despite the fact that the applicant and respondent No. 1 had not 4 cohabited during the period from 24/05/2014 to 25/12/2014 (i.e., for almost eight months). After the applicant came to know about the pregnancy of respondent No. 1 and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from her regarding the same, the matrimonial relationship between the parties became strained. Thereafter, on 02/02/2015, the father of respondent No. 1 suddenly came and took her to Korba for abortion of the fetus without informing either the applicant or any authority of the Defence Colony. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 started making excuses and creating scenes to avoid residing with the applicant and to evade answering questions regarding the aforesaid pregnancy. On 16/03/2015, the applicant, along with approximately 25 senior family members, visited the house of respondent No. 1 for an amicable settlement. However, they were not only mistreated but were also violently threatened and abused by the family members of respondent No. 1. On 06/07/2015, the parents of respondent No. 1, without seeking the permission of or even informing the applicant, admitted her to Krishna Nursing Home, Korba, for the delivery of the <rst child, which was conducted through a Cesarean section. The said surgery was performed without the consent or approval of the applicant. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 and her family members started blackmailing the applicant by threatening to implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases and to get him dismissed from service if he refused to keep respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with him. Consequently, on 16/09/2015, the father of respondent No. 1 compelled the applicant's father to execute an agreement accepting the child as his grandson and further compelled him to pay Rs. 80,000/- towards the hospital expenses incurred during the delivery. Thereafter, the family members of the applicant brought respondent No. 1 to Jammu on 24/09/2015. However, 5 after reaching Jammu, she allegedly continued her adulterous activities and was involved in physical relationships with one Hawaldar, namely Mehar, and another person, namely Kaushal, both of whom were residing in the same Defence Colony. On 22/12/2015, respondent No. 1 threatened the applicant that she would commit suicide and locked herself inside a room. Thereafter, her parents took her to her parental home on the same day without informing the applicant. Subsequently, on 03/01/2016, the applicant, along with his father, went to bring her back to Jammu. However, she refused to return, stating that the applicant was not physically competent to satisfy her and was ten years older than her, and therefore she could not reside with such an old person. Thereafter, the applicant obtained 50 days' leave from 15/03/2016 to 03/05/2016 and repeatedly contacted respondent No. 1 and her family members requesting that she return to her matrimonial home. However, his calls generally went unanswered, and whenever someone responded, he was merely asked to pay maintenance to respondent No. 1. 4. Thereafter, on 28/04/2016, the family members of the applicant persuaded respondent No. 1 to accompany the applicant to Jammu on the pretext of visiting Vaishno Devi. After reaching Jammu on 30/05/2016, while all the family members of the applicant were busy with their morning routine, respondent No. 1 quietly slipped away to the house of her boyfriend, Kaushal, where she remained with him inside the locked house for more than two hours while the child was left crying alone. On the same day, i.e., 30/05/2016, respondent No. 1 also spent the entire day with Hawaldar Mehar, who was on leave as his wife was away. The applicant was informed by several residents of the Defence Colony that Hawaldar Mehar and respondent No. 1 were spending time together alone in the government quarter. The applicant was further informed that 6 Hawaldar Mehar frequently visited his residence during his absence, taking advantage of the fact that the applicant's duty hours were irregular. This again led to disputes between the applicant and respondent No. 1. Consequently, on 01/06/2016, the father of respondent No. 1 again came and took her to her parental home, where she remained till 09/09/2016. 5. Meanwhile, the applicant was transferred from Jammu to Chennai, where he was required to report on 08/02/2017. After shifting to Military Hospital, Chennai, respondent No. 1 again complained of stomach pain and swelling in her legs. Upon being examined by the Gynecologist, she informed the doctor that her last menstrual period had commenced on 02/12/2016. However, the ultrasound report revealed that she was approximately four months pregnant, and according to the Gynecologist, her last menstrual period had actually commenced on 04/10/2016, and not on 02/12/2016 as claimed by her. It is pertinent to submit that, from the date of marriage till 23/01/2017, the marriage between the parties was never consummated, as respondent No. 1 consistently avoided the applicant on the pretext that he was an old-aged person. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 stayed in a B.Ed. College Hostel till 04/06/2017. During the said period, the applicant arranged for his niece, namely Neha, to stay with respondent No. 1 in the girls' hostel. Thereafter, the applicant brought respondent No. 1 to Military Hospital, Chennai, where she delivered the second child on 07/07/2017. Subsequently, she was taken to her parental home by her parents. When the applicant went to bring her back on 27/12/2017, the relatives of respondent No. 1 refused to send her with the applicant. During the absence of respondent No. 1, the applicant's mother used to reside with the applicant. However, on 18/06/2018, the parents of respondent No. 1 brought her to Chennai. 7 Thereafter, on 21/07/2018, when the applicant was on night duty, his mother heard the cries of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the children of respondent No. 1) at about 12:00 midnight. When she went to check the room, she found that respondent No. 1 was not present. After approximately half an hour, respondent No. 1 returned home. When the applicant's mother enquired as to where she had gone, she merely replied that she had gone to meet one of her friends and furnished no further explanation. On 30/07/2018, the father of respondent No. 1 again took her to her parental home. Thereafter, the applicant obtained 30 days' leave to bring her back. However, when he visited the house of respondent No. 1, her parents refused to send her with him. Subsequently, however, she was sent by her parents to reside with the applicant. On 09/08/2019, the applicant found respondent No. 1 inside the locked house of one Yogesh. When the applicant demanded that the door be opened, respondent No. 1 initially started making excuses in response to his queries and thereafter picked up a quarrel with the applicant. On 16/08/2019, another dispute arose between the applicant and respondent No. 1 on account of her alleged adulterous conduct. In the course of the altercation, respondent No. 1, in a <t of anger, allegedly struck the applicant on his head with a stick and snatched and broke his mobile phone. The applicant lodged a complaint regarding the said incident before his Commandant on the very same day. The applicant submitted a detailed written complaint on 20/08/2019 to the Head of the Department of the Operation Theater, where he was posted, regarding the conduct of respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on 22/08/2019, respondent No. 1 also informed the Commandant that she was not willing to reside with the applicant. That, thereafter, the applicant <led a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage 8 before the Family Court, Janjgir, on 04/09/2019, along with an application seeking a DNA test. 6. After coming to know about the <ling of the divorce petition by the applicant, respondent No. 1 also <led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for herself and her children on 16/09/2019. The applicant/husband also <led an application dated 28/10/2021 seeking a DNA test of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to establish their paternity. The said application was replied to by the respondent/wife on 23/11/2021. 7. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 31/08/2021, <xed the interim maintenance at Rs. 15,000/- per month. In compliance with the said order, the applicant-husband regularly deposited the said amount into the bank account of the respondent. 8. Thereafter, the respondent <led an application before the learned trial Court stating that she was unable to withdraw the aforesaid amount. Upon this, the applicant voluntarily and fairly submitted that he was willing to furnish his employment details and that his employer may be directed to deduct Rs. 15,000/- per month from his salary and deposit the same directly into the bank account of the respondent/wife. Accordingly, on the basis of the consent and concession given by the applicant, the learned trial Court passed an order dated 30/12/2021, directing the monthly deduction of Rs. 15,000/- from the salary of the applicant and its deposit into the bank account of the respondent/wife. The said amount of Rs. 15,000/- is still being deducted from the salary of the applicant and is being regularly deposited into the bank account of the respondent/wife. 9. The applicant also <led an application dated 22/06/2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the written 9 statement, along with certain other applications. However, the said application was again rejected in a most mechanical manner and without proper application of mind by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26/10/2023. Thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, the applicant herein (who was the respondent before the trial Court) <led applications under Sections 127(2) and 125(5) of the Cr.P.C., Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also a review application seeking a DNA test. However, all the aforesaid applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court in a most mechanical manner and without proper application of mind vide order dated 29/04/2024. 10. The applicant also <led an application dated 28/08/2024 seeking permission to bring certain documents on record, along with medical records, to establish the alleged adultery committed by respondent No. 1. However, the learned trial Court declined to take the said documents on record. The learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application <led by the applicant seeking a DNA test vide order dated 30/03/2022 on mere conjectures and surmises, without due consideration of the facts and grounds raised by the applicant to establish a prima facie case warranting the conduct of a DNA test. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant challenged the aforesaid order before this Hon'ble Court by <ling W.P. No. 227/254/2022. However, before the said writ petition could be heard, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood <nally decided by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to raise all the relevant grounds in the present petition vide order dated 13/12/2024. The respondent/wife did not even take the pain of <ling detailed replies to the various applications preferred by the 10 applicant/husband. The same is evident from the copies of some of the replies <led by her, which clearly demonstrate that the replies were <led in a mechanical manner, without containing any speci<c pleadings of fact or any categorical denial of the assertions made by the applicant/husband. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, in an illegal, arbitrary, and wholly mala <de manner, allowed the application <led by the respondent/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25/10/2024, thereby awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per month. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary in nature, inasmuch as it has been passed without properly appreciating the pleadings and grounds raised by the applicant/husband. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that suJcient material is available on record to establish the adulterous conduct of the respondent/wife. He submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife is not entitled to the grant of maintenance. The learned trial Court has conducted the proceedings in an illegal and arbitrary manner without properly applying its mind to the applications <led by the parties. A bare perusal of the entire order-sheet would reveal that the learned trial Court proceeded with the case in a hurried manner with the sole objective of deciding the matter expeditiously, without granting adequate opportunity to the applicant. The learned trial Court appears to have been prejudiced against the applicant/husband. The applicant/husband cannot be directed to pay maintenance in respect of illegitimate children and further the applicant/husband is also bearing the <nancial responsibility of his aged parents, who require continuous medical treatment. The 11 applicant/husband is also bearing the educational expenses of his nephew and niece, as his brother is <nancially weak and unable to meet such expenses. He also submits that the applicant/husband has been regularly paying interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife is not entitled to any relief in view of her adulterous conduct, and the present proceedings have been initiated only to mentally and <nancially harass the applicant/husband. The applicant/husband has already instituted a petition for dissolution of marriage, which is pending consideration before the learned Family Court, Janjgir. The respondent/wife has completed her B.Ed. degree and is employed as a lecturer in a private school, where she is earning approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. She is also earning about Rs.6,000/- per month from tailoring and beauty parlour activities. The applicant/husband is regularly depositing Rs.2,000/- per month in the P.P.F. Account No. 4513327395 of the respondent/wife, Rs.1,000/- per month in her Account No. 6162937138, and Rs.1,000/- per month in the joint account of the respondent/wife and the other respondents. Thus, the applicant/husband is already paying a total sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant/husband is also depositing Rs.1,000/- per month in Postal Account No. 6162937284 maintained at Dr. Thomas Mount HPO, Chennai, in the name of respondent No.2, Prateek, and Rs.2,000/- per month in another account of respondent No.2 bearing Account No. 6168497412. Thus, the applicant/husband is paying a total sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2. The applicant/husband is also depositing Rs.1,000/- per month in Postal Account No. 4232106998 maintained at Dr. Thomas Mount HPO, Chennai, in the name of 12 respondent No.3, Ashwim Anant, and Rs.2,000/- per month in another account bearing Account No. 4232101344. Thus, the applicant/husband is paying a total sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3. He also submits that the respondents are already receiving a total sum of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) directly in their respective accounts from the applicant/husband, besides receiving interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned trial Court refused to take on record the documents <led by the applicant/husband despite a proper application, thereby demonstrating the arbitrary and prejudiced manner in which the proceedings were conducted, with the apparent intention of disposing of the matter without due consideration. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence adduced by the respondent/wife was beyond the scope of, and not in consonance with, the pleadings made by her. He submits that the learned trial Court committed a grave illegality by <xing the case at very short intervals despite being aware that the applicant/husband was posted at a distant place, requiring three to four days of travel. The learned trial Court ought to have granted suJcient opportunity to enable the applicant to eBectively present his case during the <nal hearing. All the applications <led by the applicant/husband were rejected in a mechanical manner without aBording either the applicant or his counsel an adequate opportunity of hearing. The applicant/husband was illegally prevented from examining all his witnesses, despite the fact that copies of their aJdavits had already been supplied to the respondent/wife. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has erroneously presumed that the applicant/husband is earning a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month, whereas he is not earning the said amount as alleged by the respondent/wife. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 13 opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 15. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has recorded a <nding that the respondent No. 1 is a housewife and has no independent source of income and is, therefore, unable to maintain herself. The learned Court further found that the applicant (herein) is employed in the Army as an Operation Room Assistant and, despite being called upon to produce his salary slip, Income Tax Return and bank statement, failed to produce the same, whereas the salary slip produced by the applicant, marked as Exhibit P- 04, disclosed his gross salary of Rs. 76,701/- per month. The Court also took note of the admission of D.W. No. 2 regarding the applicant's ownership of 3 - 4 acres of ancestral agricultural land, yielding an annual income of approximately Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the applicant has suJcient means to maintain the respondents and, considering the circumstances and standard of living of the parties, the daily and educational expenses, social status and other relevant factors, awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent No. 1, Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No. 3, totaling Rs. 22,000/- per month. 16. 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 respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by 14 this Court in the present revision petition. 17. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek