1 2025:CGHC:48075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1154 of 2025 Dakesh Gaikawaad S/o Sukhdayal Gaikawaad Aged About 30 Years (At Present About 32 Years), R/o Bhendarwaani, Police Station Bhakhara, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Simpi Bandhe W/o Dakesh Gaikawaad Aged About 29 Years (At Present About 31 Years) R/o Ward No. 19 Gayatri Chowk, Sonpur Maraud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Dolly Gaikawaad D/o Dakesh Gaikawaad Aged About 2 Years (At Present About 4 Years), Represented By Mother Smt. Simpi Bandhe, W/o Dakesh Gaikawaad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 19 Gayatri Chowk, Sonpur Maraud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prahalad Shrivas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtar (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.223/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 became acquainted with the applicant in 2016 and they began speaking over the phone. In 2020, during the Baradera fair, the applicant expressed his desire to marry the respondent. The respondent replied that he must first obtain a divorce before marriage. In 2021, the applicant came with a blade and threatened that if she did not have a physical relationship with him, he would cut his hand and die. Under this pressure, the respondent entered into a physical relationship with the him. When the respondent’s health deteriorated and she consulted a doctor, she learned that she was pregnant. Upon informing the applicant, he told her not to terminate the pregnancy and promised to marry her, but he did not keep that promise. When she complained at the Birejhar outpost, the applicant again said he would marry her and took her to his village, Bhendarwani. There, at the villagers’ urging, the applicant’s parents refused the marriage. Claiming that the respondent was not carrying his child, they assaulted her and drove her out of the village. The respondent then lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, after which a case was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as Sessions Case No. 73/2021. The applicant was acquitted on the basis of consent. In his statement, 3 however, the applicant admitted that he had married the respondent according to social customs and had arranged medical treatment for her during her pregnancy. Thus, the applicant acknowledged the respondent no.1 as his wife and the respondent No.2 as their daughter. From their relationship, a daughter, Kumari Dali, was born on 30 January 2021 at Dhamtari Hospital. The applicant has not provided any maintenance to the respondents and is evading his legal responsibilities, despite earning about Rs.50,000/- per month and owning agricultural land that provides good income. The respondent is unemployed and has no source of income. Therefore, the respondents have requested that the applicant be directed to pay them a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/-. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Family Court failed to note that in her statement under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, respondent No. 1 never stated she is unable to maintain herself, which is a requirement under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. It also overlooked that the agricultural land is owned by the applicant’s father, not the applicant, and wrongly awarded excessive 4 maintenance without considering the applicant’s low income and his responsibility to support his entire family. It is a settled principle that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance, observing the evidence and documents on record, which proved that respondent No. 1 is the wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 is their legitimate daughter. Although the applicant denied the marriage and paternity, he provided no credible evidence to refute the respondent’ testimony, birth certificate, or medical records. Considering the parties’ financial and social background, the Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance to them as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil