1 2025:CGHC:27436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 790 of 2018 Lav Chandrawanshi S/o Ramnath Chandrawanshi Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Labourer (Wrongly Mentioned As Agriculturist And Expert Masons), R/o Village- Bhareli, Thana- Badala, Tehsil-Bodala, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Vintee Bai W/o Dinesh Chandrawanshi Aged About 26 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Lav Chandrawanshi), Aged-About 26 Years, R/o Village- Bhareli, Thana- Bodala, Tehsil-Bodala, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh At Present Both Are R/o C/o Anju Chandrawanshi, Village-Dhobghatti, Thana- Pandatarai, Tehsil- Pandariya,district- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Roshan Kumhar S/o Lav Chandrawanshi Aged About 9 Years (Class-4) Through-Guardian Vintee Bai Respondent No. 1, R/o Village- Bhareli, Thana- Bodala, Tehsil-Bodala, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh At Present Both Are R/o C/o Anju Chandrawanshi, Village-Dhobghatti, Thana- Pandatarai, Tehsil-Pandariya,district- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and while setting aside the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) [C.G.] in Misc. Criminal Case No. 594/2017 Annexure P/1, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2. Since the respondent failed to discharge his duty, and the resopndents are unable to maintain themselves, they prayed for an award of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent denied the marriage and stated that respondent No. 1 is the wife of Dinesh Chandrawanshi. 4. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, concluded that although respondent No. 1 is the wife of Dinesh Chandrawanshi, respondent No. 2 is the son of the applicant, and accordingly awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to 3 respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No. 01 is a laborer working under the MGNREGA scheme and earns only Rs. 170 per day. Employment under this scheme is available for a maximum of 100 days in a year out of 365 days. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material facts in the correct perspective. If respondent No. 1 is not considered as the wife of the applicant, then it would be inconsistent and unfair to treat respondent No. 2 as the child of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court awarded maintenance on the higher side. The respondent No.01 already has three children to support and no sufficient means to maintain them. She owns only 1.15 acres of agricultural land, and her income is limited to Rs. 170 per day for 100 days in a year, remaining unemployed for the other 265 days. In such circumstances, it is extremely difficult for the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 02. He further submits that the learned Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, therefore, committed an error in law by allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. For the reasons stated above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants in the present 4 revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek