1 2025:CGHC:34951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 442 of 2020 Rohit Singh S/o Shri Sukhnandan Aged About 52 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Hardipara Amagasi, Police Station- Lakhanpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Rajmaniya W/o Shri Nohar Sai Aged About 42 Years (Rohit Singh Has Been Falsely Shown By The Respondents Before The Learned Court Below As Husband Of The Respondent No. 1- Rajmaniya) R/o Amagasi, Police Station- Lakhanpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay (Rohit Singh Has Been Falsely Shown By The Respondents Before The Learned Court Below As Father Of The Respondent No. 2- Vijay), Aged About- 17 Years, Minor- Through His Mother- Rajmaniya W/o Shri Nohar Sai, Aged About-42 Years, R/o Amagasi, Police Station- Lakhanpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divya (Rohit Singh Has Been Falsely Shown By The Respondents Before The Learned Court Below As Father Of The Respondent No. 3- Divya), Aged About- 14 Years, Minor- Through His Mother- Rajmaniya W/o Shri Nohar Sai, Aged About-42 Years, R/o Amagasi, Police Station- Lakhanpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.109/2008, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of respondent No. 1, Rajmania, with the applicant, Rohit Singh, was solemnized about 12 years ago at Mahamaya Temple, Ambikapur, as per Hindu rites and customs. From their wedlock respondent No. 2, Vijay, and respondent No. 3, Divya, were born. However, the applicant, Rohit Singh, developed an illicit relationship with Taramuni, a resident of Village Chainpur, which came to the knowledge of respondent No. 1, Rajmania, about 2 years ago. When Rajmania questioned Rohit Singh about Taramuni, his behavior changed, and he started physically abusing Rajmania after consuming alcohol. About a year ago, Rohit Singh brought Taramuni and her two children to his house and told Rajmania that he was fed up with her and asked her to 3 leave the house with her children. When Rajmania refused, Rohit Singh physically abused her and threw her out of the house along with her children, Vijay and Divya. Since then, Rajmania has been living with her children at her parental home in Village Amgasi. 3. Despite several attempts by Rajmania's brother and village elders to persuade Rohit Singh to take care of the respondents, he refused. Rajmania is unable to maintain herself and her children. Her father had passed away earlier, and she is now dependent on her mother and brother for sustenance. Meanwhile, Rohit Singh is living a life of luxury with Taramuni. Rohit Singh owns two fertile agricultural lands in Village Amgasi, generating an annual income of Rs.1 lakh. He also owns a four-wheeled jeep, earning approximately Rs.500 per day. Additionally, Rohit Singh, a former Sarpanch, earns around Rs.1 lakh per year from small contracts in the Panchayat. Despite being a well-off person, Rohit Singh is not providing any maintenance to the respondents. Therefore, Rajmania has requested that Rohit Singh pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000 for herself, Rs.1,500 for Vijay, and Rs.1,500 for Divya, totaling Rs.5,000. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denied the allegations alleged by the respondent No.1. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Family Court is bad in the eyes of law, the learned Family Court without considering the materials available on record. He further submits that the applicant is not the father of respondents No. 2 and 3, and therefore, there is no question of providing maintenance to them. Additionally, the applicant has no source of income. He also submits that the amount awarded to respondent No.2 and 3 is on higher side, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing that respondent No.1 has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of applicant, further it has not been established that respondent No. 1, Rajmania, and the applicant, Rohit Singh, lived together as husband and wife. Therefore, for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rajmania cannot be presumed to be the wife of Rohit Singh. However, in her cross-examination, Rajmania has admitted that she was married to Noharsay of Village Sakariya, and there is 5 no evidence of divorce between Rajmania and Noharsay. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, in the educational documents and other records of applicant No. 2, Vijay, and applicant No. 3, Divya, the name of their father is recorded as Rohit Singh, and Rohit Singh has not challenged this. Therefore, it can be presumed that Rohit Singh is the father of applicant No. 2, Vijay, and applicant No. 3, Divya. Furthermore, after considering the economical and social status of both the parties, the Family Court concluded that respondent No.2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil