1 2025:CGHC:32642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 415 of 2020 Jai Prakash @ Prakash Tirkey S/o Shri Budhram Tirkey Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Gagouli, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shaimili Tirkey Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Her Mother Shanti Minj D/o Shri Rameshwar, Aged About 24 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o Village Boda, Police Station Batouli, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Ms. Priyanka Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:50:38 +0530 2 revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Judge Family Court, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 02/2016 and the application filed by the respondent (the applicant) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 may kindly rejected/dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.2016, an application was filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the same was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 02/2016. The case of the respondent, in short, is that in August 2014, the applicant established physical relations with the mother of the respondent, namely Shanti Minj, under the pretext of marriage, and consequently, the mother of the respondent became pregnant and gave birth to the respondent on 16.07.2015. Further, the case of the respondent is that the applicant is a prosperous person, owning 15-20 acres of agricultural land. He also works as a contractor and earns around 20-25 thousand rupees per month, but he has made no arrangement for the maintenance of the respondent. Based on the facts stated above, the respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant submitted his reply and opposed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, submitting, in substance, that he had not 3 established any physical relations with Shanti Minj (the mother of the respondent) and that he is not the father of the respondent. It was further submitted that Shanti Minj and her parents are prosperous persons, owning 10 acres of agricultural land, and as such, they can maintain themselves well. It was also submitted that the applicant has no agricultural land and does not earn by working as a contractor. Additionally, it was submitted that the applicant is a heart patient with no source of income and is, in fact, dependent upon others for his own maintenance. It was further submitted that a false allegation of rape had been made against the aplicnat merely to claim maintenance and that a false case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had been registered by the mother of the respondent to create pressure upon the applicant. Therefore, it was submitted that the application filed by the respondent for the grant of maintenance is liable to be rejected. 5. On 28.01.2020, the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), passed an order whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was partly allowed, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The impugned order dated 28.01.2020 has been passed without considering the materials available on record. He submits that the applicant is not the father of the respondent. The applicant is a heart patient and has no source of income. He also submits that in 4 any case, the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent is excessive in nature. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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 respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek