1 2025:CGHC:41611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1000 of 2025 Rajendra Sahu S/o Shri Bhola Sahu Aged About 30 Years Near Hanuman Mandir, Ekta Nagar, Godripara P.S. Teh. Chirmiri Distt. MCB, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Reshma Khan D/o Ashraf Khan W/o Rajendra Sahu Aged About 26 Years Bazarpara, Golhapani, Chirmiri P.S. Teh. Chirmiri Distt. MCB C.G. 2 - Navin Sahu S/o Shri Rajendra Sahu Aged About 10 Years Respondent 2,3 Through Gurdian Mother Reshma Khan, R/o Bazarpara Golhapani Chirmiri P.S. Teh. Chirmiri Distt. MCB C.G. 3 - Sahiba D/o Rajendra Sahu Aged About 6 Years Respondent 2,3 Through Gurdian Mother Reshma Khan, R/o Bazarpara Golhapani Chirmiri P.S. Teh. Chirmiri Distt. MCB C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in MCrC No. 57/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month each to the respondents No.2 and 3. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent No.1 taking place by dated 11.03.2012, as per Hindu Rituals and Customs and out of the said wedlock, respondents No.2 and 3 born. The respondent No.1 made allegation against the applicant that the applicant mentally and physically tortured and harassed the respondent No.1, he not taking care of the respondents, hence, she made this application for maintenance against the applicant, as she is not able to maintain herself her children. The applicant refused to take care of the respondents as she and her children are not the wife and children of the applicant, no marriage has been taken place, that the respondent lodged FIR against the applicant for committing sexual intercourse making false promise of marriage. The respondent herself withdrew the report at the Police, Station, and refused any act done by the applicant, applicant also refused that he is the father of the respondent No.2 and 3, as no relation with the respondent, and the respondent is falsely implicated the applicant in the above case. 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 partly 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 total Rs. 2,500/- per month each to the respondents No.2 and 3. 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 3 evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court denied that the applicant is already married, and have two children, the respondent filed case under Section 376 of the IPC against the applicant, and before the Court proceedings the respondent refused any of the above incident, and the respondent did not produce any of the documentary evidence to prove that the respondents No.2 and 3 have any relation with the applicant. 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