1 2025:CGHC:32656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 613 of 2017 1 - Smt. Savitri W/o Shri Shvimangal Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Ward No. 21, Rapakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Kartik Singh S/o Shri Shivmangal Singh Aged About 9 Years Caste Rajput Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri, R/o Ward No. 21, Rapakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shivmangal Singh S/o Shri Chotku Singh Aged About 35 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Near Nala, Beside Of Barrier, Kathoutiya, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, passed by the court of Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District: Korea (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 24/2016, so far as rejection of the application of the petitioner no. 2, is concern, and further enhance the maintenance amount granted to the petitioner no. 1, by suitably modify the order, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized in the year 2004, according to Hindu ritual and custom. After the marriage, she lived with the non-applicant in the village of Kathautia and led a conjugal life. When she became pregnant and the time for delivery was approaching and since the applicant is physically disabled, her mother took her to her maternal home for the delivery. There, applicant No. 2 was born. However, neither the non-applicant nor any member of his family attended the chhatti ceremony or other related rituals. After that, several requests and efforts were made to bring the applicants back, but the non-applicant neither made any contact nor provided any maintenance. Due to lack of support and financial hardship, the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. It is alleged that the applicant No. 1 is disabled and 3 does not work, she is unable to support herself and her daughter. The non-applicant owns agricultural land and also works as a laborer, from which he earns approximately ₹20,000 per month. Therefore, applicant No. 1 seeking maintenance allowance of ₹5,000/- for herself and ₹3,000/- for applicant No. 2. 4. In his reply, the non-applicant denied all the facts except those admitted in paragraph 2 of the application. He stated that the marriage was solemnized by deceit. The applicant No.1 was suffering from epilepsy, but this fact was not disclosed. After the marriage, she had a seizure at her in-laws’ house, and only then the truth came to light. He further claimed that no conjugal relationship was ever established between them, and therefore applicant No. 2 is not his child. 5. The learned Family Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties passed, passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant No. 1 and granting her Rs. 1200/- per month as a maintenance and refuse to grant maintenance to the applicant No. 2 on the ground that he is illegitimate child of non- applicant. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Family Court, has not properly appreciated the evidence and has failed to see that, the applicants have proved the cruelty and reason to left the house of the non-applicant, therefore entire claiming maintenance amount 4 should be awarded. He further submits that the learned Family Court, has rejected the application of the applicant No. 2 is completely illegal, because the applicant No. 2 is a result of wedlock of the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant and has further failed to see that without conducting the paternity test by way of DNA observation, it could not be observed that the applicant No. 2 is not a son of the non-applicant and applicant No. 1. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material, to adopt the arbitrary manner, partly allowed the application of the applicant No. 1 and granting the low maintenance amount to her is illegal. The learned Family Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted 5 maintenance of Rs. 1200/- to the applicant No.1/wife and dismissed the application of the applicant No.2 on the ground of illegitimacy. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal