1 2025:CGHC:24920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 32 of 2017 Gyan Sai S/o Amar Sai, Aged About 61 Years Caste Panika, Occupation Retired SECL Employee, R/o Subhash Colony, Churcha Colliery, Police Station Churcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District – Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sumitra W/o Gyan Sai, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Subhash Colony, Ward No. 35, Domanhil, Police Station Chirimiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Trikoli Nagar, Q. No. 1/63, Domanhil, Police Station Chirimiri, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 17/2016, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 whereby the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance 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/wife. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent started living together around 40 years back and out of said relationship, two children took birth namely Urmila and Ramesh, unfortunately Urmila died. However, the second child Ramesh is still alive and he is aged about 25 years residing with applicant. The applicant got job in SECL and was subsequently transferred to Churcha Colliery from Doman Hill Colliery. However, the respondent denied to stay and live with the applicant. Therefore, she started residing with one another person namely Mannu Khalifa. Due to this, there was no connection with the applicant and the respondent, as they were living separately. Ramesh (son) was residing with the present applicant and for his care and maintenance, the applicant got married with one Shiv Kumari. It shall be pertinent to mention to this strange and peculiar circumstances, that there was no connection, no contact with the respondent. A notice under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was received by the applicant, wherein it was stated that the applicant assaulted the respondent and due to which she started living separately. Further it was also stated that the applicant was transferred to Churcha Colliery, he 3 stopped to pay monthly maintenance, furthermore, it was stated in the application that one Sangita (aged about 22 years) is also a child born from relation of applicant and respondent and therefore she is also entitled for maintenance. A Miscellaneous application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been moved by the respondent for the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, the said application was entertained by the learned Family Court and by the impugned order, the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month has been awarded without considering the facts, situation of the case. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent did not wish to live along with applicant and she left the applicant way back in the year 1991 and she was never in touch with the present applicant nor there was any relationship between them. No document as to establish the fact that the present applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. The son Ramesh was also taken care by the present applicant from his birth and the respondent was never inclined or interested in her child. Ramesh Kumar was examined before the learned Family Court and wherein he has stated that he has been taken care by his father and respondent left him at very early age and she never tried to contact him. There is no evidence to establish the fact that the present applicant was taking care of the respondent or giving any maintenance amount. The learned Family Court erred in law while granting an exorbitant amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards maintenance. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 17/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance 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/wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondents, has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent vide impugned order dated 24.12.2016, and there is no any illegality and 5 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. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar