2026:CGHC:7154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 592 of 2024 Devkumar Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bhainsatara Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

Digitally AKHILESH signed by KUMAR AKHILESH DEWANGANKUMAR DEWANGAN versus

1 - Smt. Janki Sahu W/o Devkumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 01 Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Sonakshi Sahu D/o Devkumar Sahu Aged About 10 Months, Minor Through Natural Guadian Mother Smt. Janki Sahu, R/o Ward No.

01 Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09 /02/2026

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Case No.363/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No.1 started living together from 18.02.2018 as husband and wife pursuant to a Chudi marriage performed at Durg (C.G.). It is the case of the applicant that his first wife had expired and respondent No.1 had represented herself to be a divorcee from her earlier husband. The applicant, however, denied that respondent No.2, Ku. Sonakshi, was born out of the alleged wedlock and stated that respondent No.2 is residing with respondent No.1. The applicant further contended that respondent No.1 had suppressed material facts regarding her earlier marriages and played fraud upon him by contracting marriage under Chudi custom. After about one year of cohabitation, the parties started living separately, whereupon respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, claiming maintenance on the ground that she had no source of income and that the applicant had agricultural income. Upon receipt of notice, the applicant filed a written statement denying the allegations and also filed a reply opposing the grant of interim maintenance, asserting that respondent No.1 used to quarrel with him, subjected him to mental cruelty, and left the matrimonial home of her own accord, and that the maintenance proceedings were initiated on false and frivolous grounds to extort money. The applicant further pleaded that respondent No.1 was living separately without any sufficient cause and had earlier married one Sunil Kumar and, without obtaining a lawful divorce, started living with one Kamal Bihari as husband and wife, and therefore she is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and not entitled to claim maintenance. In support of their respective cases, respondent No.1 examined herself, while the applicant examined himself as DW-1 and also examined Bhojram Sahu and Sunil Kumar in defence. The learned Family Court, Durg, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2024, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, totaling Rs.2,500/- per month, which has given rise to the present criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and passed the order mechanically, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the learned Family Court ignored the specific grounds raised in the written statement and the evidence led by the applicant, particularly the fact that respondent No.