1 2026:CGHC:8100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 222 of 2024 Dhanurjay Yadav S/o Vidyadhar Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Kersai, Tahsil- Farasabahar, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Kamla Yadav W/o Dhanurjay Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bachchhraon, Tahsil- Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G. At Present R/o C/o Shrikant Ram, Village Narayanpur, Post- Mahila, Police Station- Itadi, District : Buxar, Bihar ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent 7led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, stating ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.16 11:16:14 +0530 2 therein that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 03.05.2009. After the marriage, she went to the applicant’s house to perform her matrimonial obligations. Out of the said wedlock, three daughters were born on 07.07.2010, 02.11.2012, and 18.12.2015, respectively. After some time of the marriage, the applicant allegedly subjected her to cruelty. It is further alleged that the applicant forced the respondent to take up employment, due to which she went to Buxar for work. The applicant is also alleged to have kept another lady as his wife and to have ousted the respondent from the matrimonial home. The respondent has no source of income, whereas the applicant has su?cient means; despite this, he has not paid a single penny towards her maintenance. Hence, she 7led the application seeking grant of maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant 7led his reply, denying all the allegations and submitting that he never subjected the respondent to cruelty. It was stated that the respondent was working as a Demonstrator in Praudh Shiksha, and after the closure of the said project, she herself left the applicant’s house and started residing at her parental home without any reasonable cause. It was further submitted that the respondent left the daughters with the applicant, and the applicant has been maintaining all three daughters. 5. It was also contended that subsequently the respondent performed a “Chudi marriage” with one Shrikant and has been living with him as his wife. In this regard, the applicant submitted that he had given intimation to Police Station Tapkara, where proceedings were initiated under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. for a non-cognizable oDence. Since the respondent has allegedly contracted a second marriage and is living with 3 another person, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2023, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous; therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself left the applicant’s house and has not returned despite several sincere eDorts made by the applicant to bring her back. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has performed a “Chudi marriage” with one Shrikant and is living with him as his wife. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, since the respondent is living with another person in adultery, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is maintaining his three daughters and providing them with proper education. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is living separately without any reasonable cause; therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is ever ready and willing to keep the respondent with him and to perform his matrimonial obligations, but the respondent is not willing to live with him without any justi7able reason. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has never subjected the respondent to cruelty. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted the respondent; rather, she herself left the applicant’s house without any reasonable cause. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application 7led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting 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. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek