1 2025:CGHC:45876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1424 of 2019 Mohan Sidar S/o Anuk Say Aged About 26 Years Cast Gond, R/o Village Raja Aama Police Chouki Kotba, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anita Bai W/o Mohan Sidar Aged About 22 Years Cast Gond, R/o Village Buldega, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Kapur Say S/o Mohan Sidar Aged About 18 Years Cast Gond, R/o Village - Buldega, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay of 1161 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2019 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.190/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant, stating that their marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 at Village Buldega, District Bilaspur, and that one son, namely Kapur Say, was born out of the wedlock. The applicant failed to file a reply before the Family Court, due to which the opportunity to submit a reply was closed on 26.02.2014. Thereafter, by order dated 16.05.2016, the learned Family Court, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 190/2015, directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure A/1), the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, suffers from factual and legal infirmities, and is liable to be set aside. The Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record while passing the order. The applicant is in poor financial condition and unable to pay the maintenance amount directed, which has resulted in his imprisonment due to non-compliance. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and deserves to be quashed. 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 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing the evidence on record, it has been established that the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2. The respondents were forcefully ousted from the matrimonial home in December 2012, thus the respondent No. 1 has a valid reason to reside separately. She has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is earning wages under the employment guarantee scheme. Considering the prevailing minimum wage rates, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are 4 entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil