1 2025:CGHC:36105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 902 of 2025 Devraj Toppo S/o Mahanguram Aged About 33 Years Caste- Uraon Occupation- Constable G D 710, R/o Village Dipadih Kudhur, Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G., Current Address- Camp Kudhur, District Police Force, Distt. Kondagaon C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Pratima Toppo W/o Devraj Toppo Aged About 28 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o D.C. Road Mahavir Ward No. 19 Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G., Current Address- Village Dipadih, Khurd P.S. Shankargarh Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - Ku. Bhumika Toppo D/o Devraj Toppo Aged About 6 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother (Respondent No. 1), R/o D.C. Road Mahavir Ward No. 19 Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G., Current Address- Village Dipadih, Khurd P.S. Shankargarh Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 126/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents No. 2 till her majority. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents had moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court for the grant of maintenance against the present applicant on various grounds. Further, on the ground of desertion and cruelty against the applicant. The amount of maintenance which was sought for in the application was to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondents by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents No. 2 till her majority. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 has utterly filed to prove and establish that the respondent No.2 is the daughter of the applicant, and the applicant is an HIV patient and he has to undergo long medical treatment which will incur the great medical expenditure. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar