1 2025:CGHC:34609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 487 of 2023 Neeraj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Prem Chandra Gupta Aged About 32 Years Caste - Vaishya, Occupation - Junior Engineer, C.G.E.B., Darri, Through Shri Premchandra Gupta S/o Late Mewalal, Occupation - Teacher, R/o Dabaripara, Baikunthpur, P.S. and Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Kanchan Gupta @ Alka Gupta W/o Shri Neeraj Gupta @ Nikki Aged About 37 Years R/o School Para, Mishra Colony, Baikunthpur, P.S. and Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 1.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp, Baikhuntpur, District - Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2020, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been allowed with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.22 19:19:18 +0530 2 direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of Rs. 35,000 per month from the applicant, her alleged husband. The respondent claimed they were married on 24.03.2012, and she was subjected to cruelty and forced to abort her pregnancy. The applicant denied the marriage and alleged that the respondent was previously married to Rajesh Gupta and had children with him. He also claimed that the respondent was earning and had no grounds for maintenance. The respondent claimed marriage with the applicant, while the applicant denied it, alleging the respondent's previous marriage to Rajesh Gupta. The respondent filed the maintenance application after receiving notice of the petitioner's divorce petition. Both parties presented evidence, including witnesses and documents, before the trial Court. The applicant denied the marriage, claiming the respondent was previously married and had children. The applicant alleged that the respondent was earning Rs. 17,500 per month. The applicant argued that the respondent had no grounds for maintenance, given their non-existent relationship. The trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the respondent from the date of filing the application. The trial Court must consider the respondent's entitlement to maintenance based on her alleged marriage to the petitioner. The trial Court must evaluate the evidence presented by both parties to determine the validity of the marriage and the respondent's grounds for maintenance. The trial Court must consider the respondent's income and financial situation in determining the maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record. The applicant denies the marriage, claiming the respondent was previously married to Rajesh Gupta and had children with him. The applicant points to documentary evidence, including voter lists and witness testimony, that supports the respondent's marriage to Rajesh Gupta. The applicant alleges that the respondent executed a false affidavit regarding her marital status. The applicant claims the respondent is well-educated, working, and capable of maintaining herself, earning Rs. 12,000 per month. The applicant alleges that the respondent is trying to harass him and his family using a false marriage certificate. The applicant argues that the maintenance amount is excessive, considering his income and liabilities. The Family Court must consider the respondent's entitlement to maintenance based on her alleged marriage to the applicant. The Family Court must evaluate the evidence presented by both parties to determine the validity of the marriage and the respondent's grounds for maintenance. The Family Court must consider the parties' income and financial situation in determining the maintenance amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp, Baikhuntpur, District - Korea (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 13/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Korea, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti