1 CGHC010065102025 2026:CGHC:35957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 232 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ranu Chauhan W/o Tej Bahadur Chauhan Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order As W/o Harish Kesharwani) R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Sadar Bazar). 2 - Sameer S/o Tej Bahadur Singh Aged About 19 Years (Now Major) (Pranav Singh), (Wrongly Mention Kesharwani) R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Sadar Bazar). ... Applicant(s) versus Tej Bahadur Chauhan S/o Lt. Bhola Singh Chauhan Aged About 42 Years Amlidih, Raipur, Currently Posted At C/o -Govt. Higher Secondary School, Fondhar Mana Road, Vip Colony, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel for the non-applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present revision petition has been preferred by the applicants assailing the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara in proceedings arising out of Case No.127/2022 (Tej Bahadur Vs. Smt. Ranu Chauhan), whereby the learned Family Court, while allowing the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cancelled the maintenance payable to applicant No.1 on the ground of her alleged remarriage and consequently rejected the application preferred by the applicants under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 31.10.2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely Pranav Singh (applicant No.2), was born. According to the applicants, after about two years of marriage, the conduct of the non-applicant changed and in the year 2006, applicant No.1 was allegedly subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by the non- applicant. It has further been pleaded that both the applicants were ultimately driven out from the matrimonial home and since then the non-applicant neglected and refused to maintain them. It has further been averred that having no independent source of livelihood and being unable to maintain themselves, the applicants instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the non- 3 applicant. The learned Family Court, by order dated 19.03.2007 passed in M.J.C. No.82/2006, partly allowed the application and directed the non-applicant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month each to applicant No.1 and applicant No.2. It has further been pleaded that with the passage of time, owing to substantial increase in the cost of living and deterioration in their Anancial condition, the maintenance amount awarded in the year 2007 became wholly inadequate for their sustenance. Consequently, after about twelve years, the applicants preferred an application under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance, which was registered as M.J.C. No.187/2019. 4. The learned Family Court, by order dated 31.10.2019, rejected the application Aled by the applicants under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants preferred Criminal Revision No.1570/2019 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The said revision was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2021, whereby the maintenance awarded to applicant No.1 was enhanced from Rs.600/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and the maintenance payable to applicant No.2 was enhanced from Rs.600/- to Rs.3,000/- per month, with a further direction that the enhanced maintenance shall be payable from the date of Aling of the application under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the non-applicant challenged the orders dated 19.03.2007 and 23.09.2021 by Aling 4 W.P.(Cr.) No.821/2022 before the Division Bench of this Court, mainly seeking stay of the recovery proceedings initiated by the applicants. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the non- applicant for the Arst time raised a plea that applicant No.1 had allegedly remarried one Harish Kesharwani on 30.11.2009 and relied upon certain school records as well as other documents in support of the said contention. 5. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition by order dated 17.07.2023, observing that no ground for interference with the order passed in Criminal Revision No.1570/2019 was made out and leaving it open to the non- applicant to avail such remedy as may be available under law. 6. Thereafter, the non-applicant instituted an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking cancellation of maintenance on the ground that applicant No.1 had allegedly remarried one Harish Kesharwani and, therefore, had ceased to be entitled to receive maintenance. Simultaneously, the application preferred by the applicants under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of maintenance on account of increase in the salary of the non-applicant was also pending consideration before the learned Family Court. Since notice in one of the proceedings could not be served upon the applicants independently, service was eBected through the connected proceedings and thereafter both the matters were heard together by the learned Family Court concerned. 5 7. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, came to the conclusion that applicant No.1 had contracted a second marriage and therefore, was not entitled to receive maintenance from the non- applicant. Consequently, the learned Family Court cancelled the maintenance payable to applicant No.1 and also rejected the application Aled by the applicants seeking enhancement of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest illegality in passing the impugned order. It is contended that the learned Family Court has recorded a Anding regarding the alleged remarriage of applicant No.1 merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures without there being any cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence on record. It is submitted that the Anding that applicant No.1 had remarried one Harish Kesharwani is wholly perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Family Court has erroneously relied upon certain entries made in the school records and ignored the remaining educational records wherein the name of the father continued to be mentioned as Tej Bahadur. It is argued that merely because one entry reDected a diBerent name, the learned Family Court could not have concluded that applicant No.1 had solemnized a second marriage. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has also committed an error in placing reliance upon the 6 deposition of DW-3 Pramod Kumar Rai and the register of Gayatri Shakti Peeth, wherein it was recorded that one Ranu Bramha had allegedly married Harish Kesharwani. Learned counsel submits that the non-applicant utterly failed to establish that the said Ranu Bramha and applicant No.1 are one and the same person. In absence of any convincing evidence establishing such identity, the learned Family Court ought not to have recorded a Anding regarding remarriage. Learned counsel further submits that during the earlier proceedings culminating in Criminal Revision No.1570/2019, the non-applicant had also attempted to raise the plea regarding alleged remarriage of applicant No.1, however, the same was not established. It is further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has returned Andings which are contrary to the material available before it. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction while virtually declaring that applicant No.1 had contracted a second marriage in proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to learned counsel, such declaration could not have been recorded in summary proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by them and the overall facts 7 and circumstances of the case, has passed a well-reasoned order. It is submitted that the Andings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon appreciation of evidence and no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the revision petition. 11.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court considered the pleadings of both the parties, their respective oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter proceeded to decide the applications preferred under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court recorded a Anding that applicant No.1 had contracted a second marriage and, therefore, ceased to be entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. Consequently, while allowing the application preferred by the non-applicant, the learned Family Court cancelled the maintenance payable to applicant No.1 and simultaneously rejected the application preferred by the applicants seeking enhancement of maintenance. 12.Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the Anding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or inArmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8 13.Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14.OFce is directed to send a certiAed copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal