1 2025:CGHC:40537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 987 of 2025 Deepak Rai S/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Chwok, House No. 15/10, Charcha Colliery, Police Station Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Sheela Singh W/o Deepak Rai Aged About 24 Years R/o Bazarpara, West Chirmiri, Thana Chirmiri, Distt. M.C.B. C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “The applicant, therefore humbly and most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to call for the record of the court's below and the order dated 5/3/25, passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya in Misc. Criminal Case No. 34/24 may kindly be pleased to set aside KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per averment inter alia of the non-applicant in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., that their marriage was solemnized on 12/8/21 and thereafter both of them reside at Village Pucchi, Distt. Umariya MP and thereafter they reside at Charcha Colliery. It was further alleged that after some time, the applicant started abusing and on 15/4/23, the applicant had ousted the non-applicant from house and when report was lodged, the Police had given the report under section 155 Cr.P.C to the non-applicant. It is further alleged that as the applicant is in job and working as General Mazdoor and earning Rs. 70,000-75,000/- per month, and due to lack of financial hardship, she sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the applicant before the learned Family Court. 3. The applicant filed the reply and denied the contention of the non-applicant and it was stated that marriage was not solemnized between them and they only knows each other and it was further submitted that the non-applicant and his family member, started pressuring applicant for marriage, otherwise, they will involve the applicant in false case. An application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed just to harass the applicant. Therefore in the circumstance, prayed for dismissal of application. 3 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 05.03.2025, whereby partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court totally lost the side that non-applicant is not legally wedded wife of the applicant. That learned Family Court had not properly consider and appreciated the application, reply and evidence of parties and one sided on the presumption and granted the maintenance to non-applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court had completely lost side to the pleading oral and documentary evidence and pass the unsustainable order. The learned Family Court had totally ignored the conduct and attitude of the non-applicant and granted maintenance to her without considering that she is not entitle for maintenance and had not considered the provision of section 125 of Cr.P.C. further no legally permissible evidence had been produce by the non-applicant which prove that she is married wife of the applicant. Therefore, the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity 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.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal