1 2025:CGHC:37762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 478 of 2023 Prakash Sonkar S/o Shri Dhanaji Sonkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Khursipar, Police Station And District Balod (C.G.) (Non- Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shyama Bai Sonkar W/o Shri Prakash Sonkar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Khursipar, Police Station And District Balod (C.G.) 2 - Minor Piyush Sonkar S/o Shri Prakash Sonkar Aged About 1 Years Through His Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Respondent No.1 Smt. Shyama Bai Sonkar, R/o Village Khursipar, Police Station And District Balod (C.G.) (Applicants) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik holding the brief of Mr. Shivendu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan holding the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Balod, District AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.23/2018, 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 until he attains majority towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No. 1 and the applicant were in love and got married in February 2017, and were living together as husband and wife at the applicant's residence. During this time, respondent No. 2, a son, was born on April 21, 2017. The applicant's mother was unhappy with the marriage and would often instigate the applicant against respondent No. 1, taunting him about marrying into a poor family and not receiving dowry. As a result, the applicant would often abuse and physically assault respondent No. 1. After delivery, respondent No. 1 was forced to work in the fields without proper food, leading to physical weakness, and making it difficult for her to take care of her child. On May 28, 2017, in respondent No. 1's absence, the applicant's mother, Lalli Bai, attempted to kill respondent No. 2 by cutting his genital area with a sickle. When respondent No. 1 returned home, she found her child injured and bleeding, and immediately reported the incident to her parents and the police. A case was registered against Lalli Bai under Section 307 of the IPC, but she was later acquitted due to benefit of doubt. The respondents claim that due to the continuous 3 harassment and attempt on their lives by the applicant and his mother, it was impossible for them to live together. Respondent No. 1 has been living with her parents and taking care of respondent No. 2, who is currently one year old. The respondents have no source of income and are dependent on others for support. The applicant, on the other hand, owns 5 acres of agricultural land and a kitchen garden, earning an annual income of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. Despite being capable of providing maintenance, the applicant has neglected to do so. The respondents request that the applicant be directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs.3,000 to respondent No. 2. thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties had granted maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000, claiming the allegations of love affair and marriage are false. The applicant asserts there was no legal marriage or physical relationship, and at the time of the alleged marriage, the applicant was a minor, rendering the marriage invalid. Therefore, the applicant argues that the respondents are not entitled to maintenance. She further submits that the Family Court's order based on incorrect presumptions and inferences. The applicant claims the 4 respondent No. 1 is not his legally married wife, and respondent No. 2 is not his child, as the applicant was a minor at the time. The applicant alleges the respondents filed a false case for maintenance, which isn't sustainable under law. Furthermore, the Family Court's decision to award maintenance is challenged on grounds that the applicant was a minor at the time of the alleged marriage, rendering it invalid. The applicant claims to have provided documents proving their minority, while the respondent's evidence, including marriage documents and photographs, was not proven through legal or cogent evidence. Therefore, the applicant argues that the respondents are not entitled to maintenance, as the respondent No. 1 is not a legally married wife and respondent No. 2 is not the applicant's child. She also submits that the Family Court's award of maintenance is challenged due to the lack of a legal marriage and physical relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1, which allegedly resulted in the birth of respondent No. 2. The applicant argues that without a valid marriage, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, rendering the Family Court's decision unjustified and improper. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 until he attains majority towards maintenance observing that after evaluating the evidence, it is found that respondent No. 1 is the wife of the applicant, and applicant No. 2 is the son of the applicant. Therefore, being the wife and son, they are entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant under Section 125 of the CrPC, if they are unable to maintain themselves. Furthermore, it is found that the non- applicant has abandoned the applicants due to the criminal case registered against his mother, based on the report lodged by respondent No. 1. As a result, respondent No. 1 is living separately with her minor son, respondent No. 2, at her parental home. Therefore, respondent No. 1 has a justifiable and sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant. He further observed that the applicant has not presented any evidence to show that the respondent No. 1 is capable of earning and maintaining herself and her minor son, respondent No. 2. Therefore, the Family Court fond that she is unable to maintain herself and her 6 minor son. Hence, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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