1 2025:CGHC:30199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 656 of 2018 1 - Chhatramuni W/o Shri Tulsi Khuntiya Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chauraamba, Post Dharjiyabatahan, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Deepak S/o Not Know Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian His Mother Chhatramuni W/o Shri Tulsi Khuntiya, R/o Village Chauraamba, Post Dharjiyabatahan, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants(s) versus Shekhar Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Keshabo Ram Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khatanga, P. S. Duldula, Distt. Jashpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : None. For Non-applicant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocat. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicants prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the court below and after its perusal KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 allow this revision and set aside the judgment dated 01.05.18 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri in Cr.R. 31/2013 and the confirm the order dated 31.08.13 and also allowed the application for maintenance of the applicants as prayed before the trial court, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.2 is minor son of the applicant No.1 and resided with his mother. On 05.03.2008, the applicants filed application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance from the non-applicant. It has been stated in the application that on 13.10.05, the applicant No.1 went to see the Aarkestra in Duldula with her friends. When she was returning, the applicant Shekhar Yadav told to sit on motor cycle and in the way near Khatang School, he committed sexual intercourse and she did not made report as both are familiar to each other. It is further stated that on pretest of marriage, he regularly committed sexual intercourse to the applicant No.1 and she became pregnant. Thereafter, she told to the applicant that she was pregnant and tell him to marry him. Thereafter, on 14.02.06 the non-applicant No.1 performed marriage with the non-applicant in Charaidand Temple. But the applicant denied keeping her in his house and thereafter he also denied keeping as wife. Thereafter, she made report to the police Station Duldula and the FIR registered and the offence under Section 363, 376 of IPC was also registered. Thereafter she gave birth of male child on 06.07.07, the applicant No.2. 3. The Non- applicant has not cared and keeps the applicants with him 3 and denied for maintaining them. The applicant No.1 is not able to maintain herself and her son and are facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. It is further stated that the father of the non-applicant is government teacher and the applicant is owner of tractor and earning 20-30 thousands from agricultural products and also earning amount from selling of vegetables as such he has sufficient means of income and he is denying maintaining the applicants. The applicants prayed before the Family Court that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- be directed to granted as maintenance. 4. The non-applicant filed reply of the application and denied the averment made in the application and stated that he has not committed sexual intercourse. He has not performed marriage with the applicant No.1. The applicant No.2 is not his son. The allegation has been made for implication in the case. It is stated that the applicant is able to maintain herself and he is jobless. He prayed that the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C may be dismissed. 5. The learned Family Court, after hearing of the parties on 31.08.13, passed an order and after considering all the material and evidence on record, the application of the applicant No.1 has been dismissed whereas the application of the applicant No.2 minor Deepak, it is held that he is illegitimate child of the non-applicant/respondent and he is entitled for maintenance amount. As such the learned Family Court passed order for maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month to the 4 applicant No.2 minor son of the applicant No.1 and directed to pay the maintenance amount to the non-applicant from the date of submission of the application. Being aggrieved by the same, non- applicant preferred a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri against the order dated 31.08.13 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed order after hearing of the parties on 31.08.13, granting maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- has been set aside on the ground that the applicant No.2 is illegitimate child. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the Non-applicant submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the non-applicants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after hearing both the parties and after considering all the material and evidence on record, passed the order dated 31.08.13, dismissed the application of the applicant No.1, whereas the application of the applicant No.2 minor Deepak, has partly allowed, holding that the applicant No.2 is legitimate child of the non-applicant and he is entitled for maintenance amount. As such the learned Family Court passed order for maintenance of Rs.2000/-per month in favour of applicant No.2 from the date of submission of the application. Being aggrieved by the same, non- 5 applicant preferred a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri against the order dated 31.08.13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the finding of the Family Court on the ground that applicant No.2 is not the legitimate child of the non-applicant and, therefore, held that he is not entitled to any maintenance under the law. Accordingly, the direction for payment of ₹2,000/- per month as maintenance was quashed. 9. The said finding of the Revisional Court has been challenged herein on the ground that it suffers from legal infirmity, as the Family Court, based on proper appreciation of evidence, had rightly held the applicant No.2 to be the legitimate child of the non-applicant. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the non-applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal