1 2025:CGHC:29586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1067 of 2016 Shri Gorge Kerketta S/o Kamil Kerketta Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Paiku Sardih, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Home Department Commandant 12 H 1 R B.N.C.A.F, District Ramanujganj Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Neera Eakka W/o Shri Gorge Kerketta Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Paiku Sardih , District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Village Talasili, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Anmol Kerketta S/o Shri Gorge Kerketta Aged About 2 Years Natural Guradian Of Mother Smt. Neera Eakka, R/o Village Paiku Sardih , District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Village Talasili, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Birendra Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Chandrakar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.10/2015, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after developing a relationship between respondent No.1 and respondent, they started living together as husband and wife. They even executed an affidavit on April 16, 2012, confirming their relationship. A son, respondent No.2, was born from their relationship. During the applicant’s posting in Ramanujganj, he left the respondents at his parental home with his mother. However, the applicant’s mother, Meristella, allegedly threw them out of the house after physically abusing them. The respondents filed a report at the Jashpur Police Station, but the police advised them to approach the court as it was a civil matter. The respondents visited the applicant at his posting place on June 19, 2013, but after staying for a few days, the applicant took them back to his parental home and left for work. His mother again allegedly threw them out after physical abuse. When the respondents visited the applicant again on July 26, 2013, he allegedly beat them and threw them out, saying, whey they came here, thereafter, The respondents claim that the applicant finally threw them out of his house on January 23, 2014, refusing to keep them any longer. The applicant No.1 physically weak and unable to work, while the applicant is employed as a Commandant in the Home Department 3 of the Chhattisgarh government, earning a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The respondents have requested maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for each respondent. Thereafter, the applicant filed reply denying the averments and claims claimed by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Family Court suffer from both factual inaccuracies and legal infirmities. The Court misinterpreted the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The court is also accused of overlooking crucial statements from the applicant and their witnesses, resulting in a legal error that violates the principles of natural justice. Given these alleged mistakes, the order is considered illegal and bad in law, warranting it to be set aside. Additionally, it is emphasized that respondent No. 1 is not the wife, and respondent No. 2 is not the son of the applicant. Therefore, they are not entitled to maintenance from the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4 filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that an unmarried person employed in government service cannot be allowed to exploit an unmarried woman by pretending to be her husband and later deny any relationship with her and their child. Based on this, the Court concludes that respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 is their son. Despite this, the applicant has denied any relationship, causing harassment to the respondents. Therefore, both respondents are entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. So far as, determination of maintenance amount is concerned, the applicant, who was previously employed in government service, has been dismissed from service, and therefore, there is no question of him receiving a salary. However, considering that applicant is a healthy young man of about 30 years, has previously served in government service, and his father owns 3 acres of agricultural land, hence, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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 Akhil