1 2025:CGHC:29543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 738 of 2017 Ramsay Kashi S/o Late Shri Pitamber Kashi, Aged About 60 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Near Lahidi School Chhota Bazar, Sarkari Dafai Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, Civil And Revenue District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ku. Divya Kashi D/o Shri Ramsay Kashi, Aged About 29 Years R/o Junapara, P.S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 66/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, partly allowed the application under Section 127(2) of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant is the daughter of the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant and she along with her mother and brother have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Baikuthpur and during pendency of the application the party have entered into compromise and applicant offered for paying Rs. 4,000/- per month to Ku. Divya and Vikram Kashi and he also agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- one time for fee and educational expenses. The applicant and his wife have also entered into an agreement to obtain the decree of divorce on mutual basis and filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in which the decree of divorce was given on 12.04.2016 and they are separated. On 20.04.2011 to till the date of filing of application under Section 127(2) of the CrPC applicant is paying a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to his son and daughter both have attained the age of majority and Vikram Kashi is running Auto Riksha and the non-applicant is also working in the private firm and their mother Smt. Savita Kashi is in Government Service and getting the salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, he prayed for alteration of the order of maintenance. The non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed their reply of the application mentioning that they have attained the age of majority but the marriage has not been taken place and denied for driving the auto and also denied about the salary of Savita. The applicant examined himself in support of the application and deposed that he has already given a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs for marriage of Divya Kashi, who is his daughter and Vikram Kashi has attained the age of majority and driving the auto is capable to earn his livelihood and he also submitted the documents which relates to divorce between the mother of the non- applicant and applicant also proved that the non-applicant is in private job, therefore, she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance. The learned trial Court has come in the conclusion that son Vikram has 3 attained the age of majority, therefore, he is not entitled for any amount of maintenance but other side recorded the finding that the non-applicant is unmarried daughter, therefore, she is entitled for grant of maintenance and partly allowed the application of the applicant by reducing the maintenance from Rs.4000/- to Rs.3000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 4. 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 non- applicant has attained the age of majority and she is 29 years of age and she is doing the private job, and the applicant has already paid a sum of Rs. 3 Lacks for her marriage, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. The impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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, and considering the conditions of the respondent, 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar