1 2025:CGHC:36516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1297 of 2024 Swarath Lal Gritlahre S/o Late Hiradas Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Manharpur Post and Tahsil - Lormi District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Vansh Gritlahre S/o Swarath Lal Gritlahre Aged About 3 Years R/o Village Maharpur Post and Tahsil – Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Vardant S/o Swarath Lal Gritlahre Aged About 3 Years Both Are Minors Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Kranti Ghritlahre R/o Village Maharpur Post And Tahsil – Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 440/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.29 10:47:33 +0530 2 (Rs. 2,500/- each) per month to the respondents. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents states that the marriage of their mother and the present applicant was solemnized in the year 2012 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that prior to the birth of the respondents, the applicant had forced the mother to undergo four abortions. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant began to physically and mentally abuse the non-applicants' mother for dowry. It is also alleged that the applicant kept another woman as his wife in a rented house, and when the respondents' mother confronted him, he assaulted her and then forcefully evicted her from the matrimonial home. Since then, the respondents' mother has been living in Lormi, along with the respondents. The applicant is employed as a Master Trainer in Tehsil Lormi and earns a monthly salary of ₹25,000. He also owns 10–12 acres of irrigated agricultural land, from which he allegedly earns ₹10,00,000 per annum. On this basis, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 from the applicant. 3. The applicant, in his reply, denied all the allegations made by the respondents. He stated that the respondents' mother is employed in a government job and used to dominate him. He prayed for the rejection of the application filed by the respondents. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay ₹5,000 per month (₹2,500 each to the respondents) as maintenance. The applicant submits that the amount awarded is on the higher side and therefore prefers this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 is illegal, contrary to established procedure, and 3 suffers from illegality and perversity. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside or the maintenance amount reduced. The respondents are residing with their mother, who is employed as a regular government servant in the Forest Department and earns a monthly salary of ₹90,000. Hence, the mother of the respondents is financially capable of maintaining them. The present applicant is an unemployed youth and sustains himself through daily wage labor. He does not have sufficient income to pay the amount awarded as maintenance to the respondents. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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 order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 440/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month (Rs. 2,500/- each) per month to the respondents, and she further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant 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 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, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any 4 illegality and 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. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti