1 2025:CGHC:54861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1354 of 2025 Ajay Kumar S/o Randhir Singh @ Chandrachur Singh Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Ajay Kumar Singh), R/o Bhaskar Colony (Purnea), Near Polytechnic College, Distt. Purnea, Bihar. ... applicant(s) versus 1 - Soni Singh W/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 40 Years D/o Chandrakumar Singh, R/o Bhaskar Nagar, Purnia, Bihar. Present Add. Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Raod, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Arya Singh D/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 13 Years Non applicant No. 2 Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Singh, Present Address- Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jagriti Singh D/o Ajay Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years Non applicant No. 3 Through Natural Guardian Mother Soni Singh, Present Address- Sattipara Rani Shakti Mandir, Kawala Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /11/2025 1. Heard Ms. Shriya Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.137/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3. The marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 09.07.2008. The respondents had preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, seeking maintenance against the present 3 applicant, along with an application for interim maintenance. On the same day, respondent No. 1 had also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Learned Court issued notices on both the applications, which were duly served upon the applicant, and thereafter the applicant appeared before the learned Court on 08.04.2025. However, on 21.07.2025, the Family Court, without referring the case for settlement, without affording the applicant an opportunity for cross-examination, and without making any genuine effort to reconcile the parties as mandated under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, proceeded to pass an order granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the respondents along with Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, the revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, relying solely on a photograph presented by respondent No. 1/wife, concluded that prima facie the applicant has established a relationship outside the marriage and, therefore, reconciliation between the parties is not possible. Furthermore, based on the said photograph, the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, permitted the withdrawal of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observing that the applicant has established relations with another woman, thereby making it impossible for respondent No. 1 to reside with him. She further submits that the learned Court committed grave illegality 4 by arriving at its findings solely on the basis of an unauthenticated photograph produced by respondent No. 1, without affording the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut the same. The conclusions drawn are speculative, unsubstantiated, and contrary to the settled principles of evidence. The Court further erred in deciding the matter on the very day the statement of the respondent was recorded, thereby denying the applicant a fair opportunity of hearing, in clear violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. She also submits that the learned Court also failed to refer the matter for settlement or reconciliation as mandated under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, despite a pending petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent No. 1 herself. Moreover, the Court acted illegally in pressurising the respondent No. 1 to withdraw her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act based on the said photograph. Lastly, the maintenance of ₹15,000/- awarded is excessive, arbitrary, and disproportionate to the Applicant’s actual financial capacity, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law and on facts. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay 5 Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, towards maintenance, observing the pleadings and evidence, concluded that the applicant (husband) had established relations with another woman and was residing separately, which amounted to cruelty towards the wife. It was held that the respondent No. 1 (wife) was living separately for sufficient and justified reasons. The Court further observed that the applicant had adequate means of income and was capable of maintaining his wife and children. Accordingly, the Court granted maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. 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 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil