1 2025:CGHC:30233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 894 of 2018 Prabhat Sahu S/o Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Odia, Police Station And Tahsil Chuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Lomesh S/o Pradhat Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Guardian Natural Grandfather Bisheshar Sahu, R/o Village Bhimpuri, Police Station And Tahsil Chuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.53/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance against the applicant, bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 53/2015, before the Link Court, Khairagarh. The respondent claimed that the marriage between the applicant and Mohini Bai (mother of respondent) was solemnized about 15 years prior, and they had a child together. Mohini Bai left the applicant's house in 2014 due to a backbone fracture, and the applicant cared for her treatment. Despite attempts to reconcile, the applicant refused to take Mohini Bai back. Thereafter, Mohini Bai convened a social meeting where both parties agreed to reunite, but the applicant reneged on his promise. The applicant appeared in court, denying the allegations and claiming that Mohini Bai left without sufficient reason, dis- entitling her to maintenance. During the pendency of the application, Mohini Bai passed away. The court examined the evidence and awarded Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance to respondent. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed error in not considering the fact that Mohini Bai residing separately from the applicant without sufficient means, which dis-entitled her to maintenance, further daughter of 3 applicant, who is aged about 5 years is residing with the applicant and applicant is bearing all her expenses. He further submits that the applicant had also filed an application under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for custody of respondent No.2, in that applicant, the maternal grandfather of respondent categorically stated that he has a sufficient means for taking care of respondent, which the Family Court had not considered and passed the order. 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. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the applicant has not made any arrangements for the respondent’s maintenance since their separation, despite the fact that the evidence suggests that Lomash, the applicant, is the child of the applicant and it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide for their care. Considering the applicant’s limited income, the Family Court 4 concluded that it seems appropriate to award maintenance to the minor child, Lomash. 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. 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