1 2025:CGHC:26565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 677 of 2017 Karmabeer Pratap Sai S/o Nerityapal Sai, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Kharwatoli, Police Station Narayanpur District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Aruna Kujur S/o Sulemaan Kujur, Aged About 26 Years, 2 - Minor Sheryansh Pratap Sai S/o Karmabeer Pratap Sai, Aged About 2 Years through Guardian Mother Aruna Kujur, Both R/o Village Jokari, Police Station And Tahsil Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for the respondents to press this revision petition when the case is called out. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.08/2016, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:45:33 +0530 2 passed by Family Court, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.), whereby, the learned Family Court has granted order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month to the non- applicant No. 2. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the non- applicants herein have filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per month. It was alleged in the application that applicant herein and non- applicant No.1 was having love affairs and they are residing as husband and wife. Out of their physical relationship, on 09.11.2013, non-applicant no. 2 namely Shreyansh Pratap Sai was born. Since both the parties are living as husband and wife therefore both of them are husband and wife. A proceeding of marriage was also initiated Under Special Marriage Act by both the parties however the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Non-applicants are not having sufficient source of income and they are unable to maintain themselves whereas applicant herein is having sufficient source of income therefore it is responsibility of the applicant herein to maintain non-applicants. The applicant herein has denied the allegations made in the application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by filing his reply, it has been specifically stated that, there is no love affairs between the parties and no marriage has been performed between them. The non- applicant No. 1 is not the wife of applicant herein likewise, non- applicant No. 2 is not the son of applicant herein. There is no 3 material to show that the non-applicants are wife and son of the applicant. The non-applicant No.1 has instituted a case U/s. 376(2) (n) of IPC and section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act which was dismissed by the trial court in which statements were recorded and after conclusion of the trial, the applicant herein was acquitted. The application has been filed on incorrect grounds which is liable to be dismissed. The learned Family Court after taking evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties, has most illegally allowed the application filed U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. by the non-applicants herein in part and has granted order of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month to the non- applicant No. 2. However application in respect of non-applicant no.1 has been rejected. Hence this revision. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has erred in law by awarding a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 herein as maintenance amount. He would submit that the learned Court below should have considered this fact that there is nothing to show on record that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 were residing as husband and wife for long time and the learned Court below failed to consider this fact that neither any scientific examination has been done nor there is any evidence to hold that the non-applicant No. 2 is the son of applicant herein. He would submit that the learned Court below should have considered this fact that, the applicant herein is acquitted in a trial which the non-applicant No. 1 is the 4 complainant. The trial has held that the prosecution could not prove its case. The learned Court below should have considered this that non-applicant No. 2 was not been declared as son of the applicant herein by any competent court of law and the learned Court below should have considered this that the applicant is not having sufficient source of income. He is not having any property of his own. The landed property belongs to his father and uncle's. He would submit that the learned Court below should have considered that the applicant is labour from where he is not getting any such amount which can be said to be sufficient and the amount of maintenance awarded to the non-applicant No.2 is on the very higher side. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has granted order of maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant No. 2 observing that AW-1 Aruna Kujur has deposed that the respondent/husband belongs to a well-off family and possesses sufficient movable and immovable properties, including a tractor that he operates himself, earning Rs.30,000 to Rs.35,000 per month; the respondent has not entirely denied this statement in paragraph 8 of his reply and he claims to earn Rs.1,000 to Rs1,500 per month through manual labour, which appears to be untrue considering the evidence; this 5 witness has stated that the respondent owns 8 acres of agricultural land with 3 co-sharers and the respondent has admitted in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination that there is a tractor in his house registered in his mother's name. 7. Considering the submission 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri