1 2025:CGHC:47289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 733 of 2021 Ramlal Mourya S/o Lachchhuram Mourya Aged About 40 Years Occupation Mason, Caste Muriya , R/o Village Khaspara , Post Marenga, Police Station Parpa, Tahsil Takapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Urvashi Mourya W/o Ramlal Mourya Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Somoda, Post Tahsil , Chowki Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Ku. Sakshi @ Gudiya Mourya D/o Ramlal Mourya Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Urvashi Mourya , R/o Village Somoda, Post Tahsil , Chowki Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Ku. Santoshi Mourya D/o Ramlal Mourya Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Urvashi Mourya , R/o Village Somoda, Post Tahsil , Chowki Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Ramsajivan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ramsajivan, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 15-09-2021 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Non-applicant No.1 preferred an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance for herself and for Non- applicants Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughters). The contention of Non- applicant No.1 before the Family Court is that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and Non-applicants Nos.2 and 3 are her minor daughters. She further alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant started treating her with cruelty, both physically and mentally, and also neglected her basic needs. Thereafter, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The Non- applicants are facing severe @nancial hardship; therefore, she claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for each of them (wife and daughters), totaling Rs.9,000/- per month. 4. The applicant denied the contention of Non-applicant No.1/wife and speci@cally disputed the fact of marriage. He contended that no marriage was ever solemnized between him and Non-applicant No.1. He further asserted that Non-applicants Nos.2 and 3 are neither his legitimate nor illegitimate daughters. 3 5. The learned Family Court framed as many as 12 issues and, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, partly allowed the application in favour of Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The Family Court directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to Non-applicant No. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to Non- applicant No. 3 towards maintenance till majority. However, the claim of maintenance in favour of Non-applicant No. 1 was rejected. The Family Court further ordered the applicant to bear Rs. 300/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 100/- towards advocate’s fee. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of maintenance dated 15-09-2021 (Annexure A-1), directing payment to Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3, is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside. In Issue No. 2, the learned Family Court itself recorded a @nding that Non-applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of one Lakhmu, not the applicant and in Issue No. 3, the Family Court further held that Non-applicant No.1 had performed a love marriage with Narsingh Sethiya and is presently living with him. Despite recording @ndings that Non-applicant No.1 had marital/relationship ties with Lakhmu, Mahesh, and Narsingh Sethiya, the Family Court still imposed maintenance liability upon the applicant for Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3. In Issue No. 7, the Court noted that Non-applicant No.1 is presently pregnant by Narsingh Sethiya, which further falsi@es her claim against the applicant. The Court denied maintenance to Non-applicant No.1 for want of proof of her marriage with the applicant, yet paradoxically granted 4 maintenance to Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3, which is contradictory. He further submits that in Para 13, the Family Court recorded that the marriage of the applicant and Non-applicant No.1 took place on 06-05-2009, whereas Non-applicant No.2 was born on 14-09-2009, i.e., only 4 months and 8 days later, which is practically impossible. The Non-applicant No.1 admitted her criminal background, including imprisonment with Narsingh Sethiya for murder of a Forest OGcer, as well as involvement in Crime No. 68/2018 at P.S. Dabugaon (Odisha). This clearly reHects her antecedents and modus operandi. He further submits that the Family Court in Para 29 itself admitted that Non-applicant No.1 is not the wife of the applicant and that she was living with Narsingh Sethiya as his wife, yet still held Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3 to be the illegitimate daughters of the applicant, which is contradictory and unsustainable. He further submtis tha it is settled law that for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, Non-applicant No.1 must prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3 are his legitimate children. In the instant case, no such proof was adduced. Hence, the award of maintenance in favour of Non-applicant Nos. 2 & 3 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the object and spirit of Section 125 CrPC. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application @led under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 9000/- for herself and minor. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance in favour of non-applicant No. 02 and 3 and rejected the application of non-applicant No. 01 on the ground that she has failed to prove that she is the legally married wife of the applicant. The Family Court arrived at the conclusion that the non-applicant No. 02 and 03 is legitimate daughter of the applicant whereby it has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant No.2 and Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the Non-applicant No.3 till their majority. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of @nancial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant No.2 and 3. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 6 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and @nding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OGce is directed to send a certi@cate copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal