1 2025:CGHC:36524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 685 of 2023 Deepak Kumar (Minor) S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Markam Aged About 2 Years Caste- Gond, Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Malti Markam W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Markam, Aged About- 26 Years, R/o Village- Bamhantola, Ward No. 16, Police Station And Tahsil- S. Lahara, District- Karbirdham Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village- Singarpur, Police Station And Tahsil- S. Lohara, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Narendra Kumar Markam S/o Shri Dhanuk Markam Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Agriculture, Village- Bamhantola, Ward No. 16, Police Station And Tahsil- S. Lohara, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.20/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant’s mother, Malti Markam, was married to the respondent in 2017 through a Chudi Vivah ceremony, and the applicant was born from their wedlock in District Kabirdham. Initially, the married life was peaceful, but the respondent and his family members allegedly began to torture, quarrel, and cruelly treat Malti Markam without reason. In 2021, she was thrown out of the respondent's house along with the petitioner and forced to live with her parents in Village Singarpur, District Kabirdham, while the respondent neglected them. In 2022, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned court below, seeking maintenance. Malti Markam stated that the respondent owns 28 acres of agricultural land in District Kabirdham and earns a substantial income but neglects her and their minor child, leading to financial hardship. The learned Family Court issued a notice to the respondent, who denied the allegations. After examining witnesses and hearing both parties, the Court partly allowed the applicant’s application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be modified as it fails to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. The maintenance amount granted is inadequate and requires enhancement. Therefore, we pray for revision of the order to grant a just and reasonable maintenance amount. He further submits that after a period of peaceful married life, Malti Markam, the applicant’s mother, was subjected to torture, frequent quarrels, and cruel treatment by the respondent and his family members without any justification. In 2021, she was forcibly ejected from the respondent's house along with the applicant and was compelled to reside at her parental home, facing significant financial hardship. However, the learned court below seemingly overlooked these facts and circumstances and granted an inadequate amount as maintenance. Therefore, the order passed by the learned court below is liable to be modified, and the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance observing the statements of both parties, it is clear that a social meeting was held after applicant’s mother became pregnant, wherein both parties acknowledged each other as husband and wife and executed agreements Exhibit A-14 and Exhibit A-15. However, it is not established that any Chudi Vivah ceremony was performed between them. Applicant’s mother herself admitted that she would not have gone to the respondent's house if the society members had not sent her there, which indicates that no marital ceremony was performed between applicant’s mother and the respondent. Further, there is no evidence on record to suggest that applicant’s mother had obtained any legal or social divorce or separation from her previous husband. The respondent is himself already married, and there has been no divorce or marital separation between him and his wife, Bindabai. Bindabai is currently residing with the respondent as his wife. Thus, from the above analysis of evidence, it is not proven that applicant’s mother, Malti Markam, is the legally wedded wife of respondent Narendra Kumar Markam, Moreover, there is no dispute on the point that applicant, Deepak Kumar, is the child born from the relationship between applicant’s mother and the respondent. Thus, he is the son of the respondent and is currently around 5 three years old. Being a minor, he is incapable of maintaining himself, therefore the Family Court granted monthly maintenance to him as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 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