1 2025:CGHC:23481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 683 of 2025 1. Dauram Yadav S/o Maniram Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Mohtara, P.S. Lawan, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Anju Bramhe W/o Dauram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Amera Tehsil Palari District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Deepesh Yadav Through Anju Bramhe (Mother), R/o Amera Tehsil Palari District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Respondents : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12/06/ 2025 1. The present revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in MCC No. 336/2024, wherein SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.15 12:50:46 +0530 2 amount of Rs. 4,000/- has been granted on an application filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. 2. Learned counsels appearing for the applicant submit that the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- granted by learned Family Court is on the higher side. It is further contended that the learned court has failed to consider that respondent No. 1(wife) had lodged an FIR against the applicant (husband) alleging rape, which raises questions about her claim to maintenance as a wife. The counsel argues that prima facie, based on documentary evidence, the respodnent No.1 does not appear to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and this issue necessitates through examination and prooof. 3. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the applicant and perused the documents annexed with the revision including the impugned order. 4. The respondents herein had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) for grant of maintenance to Rs.17,000/-. Learned judge after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record granted Rs.4,000/- towards maintenance vide impugned order dated 07.03.2025 passed in MCC No. 336/2024. 5. Having carefully examined the impugned order, I find no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the findings recorded by the learned Judge as it is admitted by the applicant herein in para 04 of the impugned order that a marriage ceremony 3 between respondent No.1 and him was performed at an Arya Samaj Temple, therefore, at this stage, no interference is required in the present revision. 6. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. 7. However, the Family Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.