1 2025:CGHC:38873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 786 of 2023 Rahul Rajwade S/o Shri Devchand Rajwade Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Karji Nawabandh, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Darima, District Sarguja (C.G.) .. Applicant versus Ku. Trisha (Minor) Minor, Through Her Mother Kirti Singh D/o Shri Bandhan Singh, Caste Gond, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Opposite Manipur Chowki Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.56/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 06.03.2021, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:20 +0530 2 which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 56/2021. The case of the respondent, in brief, is that a love affair developed between her mother and the applicant in 2019. It is alleged that the applicant took her mother to Village Nawabandh Karaji, made physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage, which led to her pregnancy and the eventual birth of the female child—i.e., the present respondent. The respondent further states that her mother filed a complaint, leading to the registration of Crime No. 10/2020 for offences under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Section 2(n) & 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Aadim Jati Kalyan, Ambikapur. The respondent currently resides with her maternal grandparents, who are financially weak. It is alleged that the applicant has neglected his duty to provide maintenance. She further claims that the applicant runs a motorcycle parts shop named Mahamaya Auto Parts and sought ₹5,000 per month as maintenance. 3. In response, the applicant filed a written reply denying all allegations, including any physical relationship with the respondent’s mother and the paternity of the child. He submitted that he does not own any auto parts shop but works under a mason named Manohar Mistri in Village Bhitthikala, earning ₹150 per day as a laborer. He also contended that the respondent’s mother is educated, earning ₹10,000 per month by working in a shop, and is financially capable of maintaining the child. Therefore, he argued that the application should be rejected. On 18.05.2023, the Learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), partly allowed the application in Misc. Criminal Case No. 56/2021 and directed the applicant to pay ₹1,500 per month as maintenance to the respondent. Hence, this revision is being filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 order dated 18.05.2023 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The impugned order dated 18.05.2023 has been passed without properly considering the material available on record. The respondent is not the biological child of the applicant, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from him. The applicant earns only ₹150 per day by working under Manohar Mistri and is therefore financially incapable of providing maintenance to the respondent. The respondent has not filed any documents to establish that she was born out of a relationship between the applicant and her mother. In any case, the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent is excessive in nature. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it has been established that the respondent Kumari Trisha Rajwade, is the daughter of the applicant, Rahul Rajwade, and is a minor child. Therefore, the moral responsibility for her maintenance lies with the applicant. Hence, the respondent, Kumari Trisha Rajwade, is entitled to receive maintenance from her father, the applicant, Rahul Rajwade. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family 4 Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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