1 2025:CGHC:25111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 923 of 2017 Ram Bihari S/o Shri Dilbahar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhitarkona Samarbar , Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Manjna Chauhan W/o Ram Bihari, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Samarbar, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Prithavi, S/o Ram Bihari, Aged About 1 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Manjna Chauhan Wife Of Ram Bihari, R/o Village Samarbar, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.84/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance from the applicant alleging that in the year 2010, the proposal was made by the applicant to marry respondent No.1 and when repeatedly the proposal was made, the respondent No. 1 agreed to be wife of the applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant and respondent No.1 were living as husband and wife. During the period, the respondent No.1 became pregnant. Thereafter the applicant was not taking care of the respondent No.1 and in the year 2012, he subjected her to cruelty and she was thrown out from the house. It has been pleaded in the application that the respondent No.1 gave birth to a female child, the respondent No.2 herein, in her parental house. From then the respondents are residing in her parental house. It has been further pleaded in the application that the applicant is working as Munshi under the Secretary of one Rojgar Sahayak and earning of Rs.5000/- per month. It has also been alleged that he also does agricultural work and earned Rs.5,00,000/- from agricultural products. As such the respondents 3 prayed before the trial Court that the maintenance amount of Rs.5000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.3000/- per month for respondent No.2 may be granted against the applicant. 4. The applicant filed reply to the application and denied the averment of the made in the application by the respondents and stated that he is already married persons and he is living with his children and wife in village Sambahar. It has been stated that the applicant had not married respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is not his child. He also denies the fact that he is in service. After hearing parties, the learned Family Court, Jashpur passed an impugned order dated 05.04.2016 and held that the respondent No.1 is not the wife of applicant and rejected her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. So far as the application of the respondent No.2 is concerned, it has been held that the respondent No.2 is illegitimate child of the applicant and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent No.2 from the date of order. Hence the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed in appreciating the evidence of applicant and his witnesses regarding respondent No.1, who is not his wife and also there is no proof that respondent No.2 is his daughter, further applicant had not married with respondent No.1 and there is no evidence to show that respondent No.2 was her daughter. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed in appreciating the fact that applicant is not in service, he is an 4 agriculturalist and hardly manages the needs of his family members. Moreover, applicant is already a married person and having children, who resides with him. Lastly, no DNA test was conducted to prove the fact that respondent No.2 is daughter of applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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 respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the income of applicant, the respondents’ witness, Manjana Chauhan (PW-1), testified that the applicant earns Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/- per month as a Munshi and Rs. 5 lakhs annually from agricultural work. However, no documents were presented to prove the applicant’s ownership of agricultural land. The witness also failed to specify under whom the non-applicant works as a Munshi. In cross- examination, the witness stated that the applicant works in the Panchayat department, verifying Aadhaar cards, but no supporting documents were provided. After considering the applicant's physical ability and health, the Family Court has awarded Rs. 1,500 per month as maintenance to respondent No. 2 (child) from the applicant. 5 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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