1 2025:CGHC:27754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1333 of 2018 1 - Smt. Urmila Beck W/o Kasmir Beck Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Beltoli, Basantala, Police Station- Narayanpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandesh Beck S/o Shri Kashmir Beck Aged About 2 Years Through His Mother Smt. Urmila Beck, R/o Village- Beltoli, Basantala, Police Station- Narayanpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kashmir Beck S/o Late Surendra Beck Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Beltoli, Basantala, Police Station- Narayanpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sakshi Chhabra holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Ms. Sakshi Chhabra holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.136/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is the mother of applicant No. 2, they filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging therein that applicant No.1 and respondent were living as husband and wife and from their intimacy applicant No. 2 was born on 04.09.2016. It is also submitted therein that initially the respondent committed rape in the month of January 2015 without the consent of the applicant No.1 and against her will. The said physical relationship was committed on the pretext of marriage, which resulted into birth of applicant No. 2 and when the applicant No.1 conceived, the respondent insisted to get the child in womb aborted. However the applicant No.1 refused to do so. The applicant No.1 after such refusal to marry by the respondent lodged First Information Report against the respondent, wherein the respondent was tried and prosecuted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However he was acquitted. Thereafter, applicant No.1 had submitted application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for 3 maintenance of applicant No.2 on the ground that the respondent is capable to maintain the applicants however he is neglecting to maintain them without due excuse. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court, Jashpur had rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC in respect of applicant No.1 and as she is able to maintain her child from her salary the applicant of applicant No.2 was also rejected. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits learned Family Court has erred in considering the respondent is the biological father of applicant No.2 and therefore, by virtue of Section 125 of CrPC, he is liable to maintain him and the Court has ignored the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC, which requires that till the child attains the age of maturity irrespective of whether the child is legitimate or not and thus passed the order. He further submits that applicant No.1 is also entitled for maintenance, even though she was not married to the respondent, because they were in a live-in relationship, which is also recognized in Indian Laws. He also submits that learned Family Court ignored the fact that respondent is capable of maintaining the applicants, but respondent was negligent in maintaining them and has violated the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC, therefore, order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants observing that the applicant's witness, Bertha, testified that the applicant is employed as a peon with a monthly salary of Rs.8,000. The applicant, Urmila Beck, herself stated that she is supporting herself and her child through her income as a peon. Given that Urmila Beck is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from him. Furthermore, as she is employed in government service and earning a salary, she is capable of supporting herself and her child. After considering all the above circumstances, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the applicants are not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil