1 2025:CGHC:38862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 955 of 2025 Safique Ahmad S/o Shri Ali Ahmad @ Baba Aged About 35 Years R/o C/o. House Of Sunil Kumar Teacher, Gayatri Mandir Chowk Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Tabassum Khatun @ Juli D/o Mohd. Jaseem Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kathoutiya, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Farhan D/o Safique Ahmad Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tabassum Khatun @ Juli, R/o Village Kathoutiya, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Ashwini Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ashwini Goverdhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 162/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that That, initially the respondents have filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court and filed the thereafter the respondents again application under Section 127 of CrPC before the learned Family Court Manendragarh and the learned family Court directed the husband to pay Rs.4000/-vide order dated 15-04-2019 in Misc. Criminal Case No.128/2018. Thereafter the respondents again filed the application under Section 127 of CrPC on 17-06-2023 and prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount from 4000/- to Rs.12000/- stating therein that due to high rate of the accommodates and also the respondent No.2 is schooling going children and huge amount is spent in the books, dresses, travelling and other expenses relating to the school. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 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 applicant is 3 doing the work of auto driver and earning Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month and in this amount, whole family members are dependent like his old aged parents and also two school going children. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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