2026:CGHC:7377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1402 of 2024 Jai Singh S/o Kaliram Aged About 46 Years R/o Keribandha Post Arjuni, Sakti Tehsil, Thana Sakti District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. R/o Railway Crossing, Baradwar, Thana Baradwar, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Rajeshwari Raj Sidar W/o Jai Singh Sidar Aged About 41 Years Present R/o Ratanpali, Post Gadgori, P.S. And Tehsil- Sakti, District : Janjgir-

Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

10.02.2026

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and the order dated 17.10.2024, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 32/2022, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sakti, District RAHUL DEWANGAN

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

Janjgir champa, passed in the matter of Rajeshwari Raj Sidar V/s. Jai Singh, may kindly be set-aside and the application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure may also kindly be rejected.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–wife application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-, pleading that her marriage with the applicant–husband was solemnized in the year 1997 and two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that soon after marriage the applicant subjected her to cruelty, harassment and physical assault under the influence of alcohol, and despite the subsistence of the valid marital relationship, he kept another woman, namely Tuleshwari, as his wife and begot two children from her. It was further averred that about 15 years prior, the applicant, after assaulting the respondent in a drunken condition, drove her out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside at her parental house without any independent source of income, while she frequently suffered from ill health and her younger daughter, residing with her, faced financial hardship in pursuing education, whereas the applicant is employed as a Track Maintainer in the Railways earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. The applicant–husband, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the respondent had already contracted a second marriage with one Pardeshiram Yadav on 12.03.2006 and was living a happy married life with him, and therefore was not entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and the economic and social status of the parties, held that though the claimed amount of Rs.20,000/- per month was not justified in view of the applicant’s proved income, the respondent was entitled to live in accordance with the social and economic status of the applicant, and accordingly, by order, partly allowed the application directing the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the younger daughter is residing with the applicant and the marriage of the elder daughter has already been solemnized, and further erred in ignoring that the respondent–wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and, in view of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not entitled to maintenance. It is also submitted that the respondent had contracted a second marriage with Pardeshiram Yadav and had made a categorical statement before the competent Court on 12.03.2006 to that effect, undertaking not to initiate any proceedings against the applic