1 2025:CGHC:27700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 686 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Deshlahre S/o Gaindlal Deshlahre Aged About 35 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Santosh Deshlahre In The Cause Title ) R/o Village Jora (Bhawani Nagar ) Police Station Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Lalita Bai Deshlahre W/o Santosh Kumar Deshlahre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pachela, Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chandrahas S/o Santosh Kumar Deshlahre, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Lalita Deshlahre, R/o Village Pachela, Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Kumari Chandni, D/o Santosh Kumar Deshlahre Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Lalita Deshlahre, R/o Village Pachela, Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Kumari Peelu D/o Santosh Kumar Deshlahre, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Lalita Deshlahre, R/o Village Pachela, Police Station Vidhansabha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:47:00 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Family Court Raipur, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.23/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1/Mrs. Lalita Deshlahare and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.3 Ms. Chandni till she attains majority and Rs. 1,500/- per month to applicant No.4/Pilu as maintenance till she attains majority from the order dated 23.02.2019 and pay Rs. 500/- separately as expenses of this case. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the respondent No. 1 with the applicant was solemnized before 16 years and from their wedlock, three children respondent No. 2 to 4 are born. The applicant was committed marpeet to respondent No. 1 and drinking alcohol and his illegal relation to the another woman, who has working in a soap factory on this reasons the applicant has been got to out of his house to respondent No. 1 with committing marpeet, then she was living in the house of her father at village Pacheda with their children from April 2015. On 15.05.2015 she was lodged the complaint against the applicant in the police station, but after this he has denied to keep living in his house to the respondents. The applicant is working as Engineer in the soap factory and earned Rs. 15,000/- per month 3 whereas no any source of income of the respondent No. 1, therefore granting the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and the evidence on record, which is liable to be quashed. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is admitted in her statement that she has earned Rs. 4000/- per month from working in the Disha college, whereas the respondent has failed to prove the income of the applicant, there is no any source of income, he is labour works as established in his evidence he is member of the family below poverty line. He later submits that the learned Family Court also committed the error for deciding the issue of respondent No.1 living with her father without any adequate reasons. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant filed this Criminal Revision to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2019 for awarding the maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife states that her son Chandrahas/respondent No.2 lives with the applicant/huband, in such a situation, maintenance order cannot be given for son Chandrahas, but respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are wife and minor children of applicant whose maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant. Further, the respondent No.1/wife accepts to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. In such a situation, keeping in view the economic and social status of both the parties, in such a situation, it would be 4 justified to provide maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1/Mrs. Lalita Deshlahare and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.3 Ms. Chandni till she attains majority and Rs. 1,500/- per month to Pilu/respondent No.4, as maintenance till she attains majority from the order dated 23.02.2019 and will pay Rs. 500/- (five hundred rupees) separately as expenses of this case. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the 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