1 2025:CGHC:31293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 417 of 2021 Samresh @ Bappi S/o Babu Ram Mali Aged About 30 Years R/o Ravindranagar, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus 1. Kavita W/o Samresh @ Bappi Aged About 20 Years R/o Mahabirpur, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., 2. Jay S/o Samresh @ Bappi, Aged About 1 Years 6th Months Minor Through His Mother Res No. 1, R/o Mahabirpur, P.S. Jaynagar, Tahsil, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.06/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 12:02:12 +0530 2 directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/son (he will be entitled to received the said maintenance amount only until he attains adulthood), from the date of order and rejected the application with respect to respondent No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and respondent No. 2 is their legitimate son, born out of their wedlock on 10.04.2017. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month each for herself and her child. She alleged that after marriage, she was ill-treated, beaten, and ousted from her matrimonial home by the petitioner, forcing her to settle at her maternal home, where she gave birth to their child. Despite her parents' efforts to persuade the petitioner to take her back, he refused. The petitioner denied these allegations, stating that he was willing to keep her and made efforts to bring her back, but she refused. He claimed that she had told him she was married to him forcefully and had an affair with someone else. The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and attempted to reconcile through counseling and the Lok Adalat, but respondent No. 1 refused to live with him. The applicant argued that he couldn't maintain them separately due to insufficient income and that he was willing to maintain them jointly. He also mentioned his liability to care for his aged parents and the challenges of paying maintenance during the pandemic. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is still ready to keep both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with him in his home and to maintain them with best possible resource he is having. He further submits that the applicant is not having sufficient income to maintain them 3 separately that is duly proved from the facts, documents and evidences brought on record that is also observed by learned Family Court in the impugned judgment. The learned Family Court has observed and it is found proved that the applicant is not having sufficient means to prove the respondent despite that passing the impugned judgment is bad in law. Though there is not sufficient income to the applicant however respondents used to live together then it is possible to increase the income thereby family will run smoothly. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned Family Court has not passed the judgment relying on the provisions of the Section 125 rather merely on humanity ground based on emotion the impugned judgment appears to have been passed that ought not to have been done. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that it has been proved by the statement of the witnesses that the respondent No.1 is wife and respondent No.2 is child of applicant. There is not enough reason to stay separate from the applicant. So, respondent, No. 1/wife is not entitled to receive maintenance. Since respondent No.2 is the son of the applicant, in that case it is the moral responsibility of the applicant to maintain the respondent No.2/son. Therefore, it will be justified to provide maintenance to respondent No.2 from the applicant. Therefore, the application in relation to the applicant No.2 is accepted and the application in relation to the applicant No.1 is rejected. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 4 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family 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