1 2025:CGHC:36872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1326 of 2023 Yuvraj Singh S/o Bhuvneshwar Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste- Rautiya, Occupation- Cultivator, R/o Village And Post - Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil- Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kanta Singh W/o Yuvraj Singh Aged About 37 Years Caste- Rautiya, R/o Village And Post- Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil- Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sonu Singh S/o Yuvraj Singh Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Kanta Singh, Caste- Rautiya, R/o Village And Post- Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil- Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 93/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, stating therein that the respondent No.1 and applicant were having love affair and out of their wedlock, the respondent No.2 born out of their wedlock, the respondent No. 1 due to which, social meetings were convened, despite this the applicant has performed marriage with other lady, the applicant is having sufficient source of income, despite this, he is avoiding to maintain the respondents, therefore, they filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is doing labour work and hardly running livelihood of himself and his parents and he has to no permanent source of income or any agricultural land in his name. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. 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 21.11.2023 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 93/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar