1 2025:CGHC:40118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 78 of 2024 Ashutosh Netam S/o Shri Baliram Netam Aged About 39 Years R/o Hariom Bhawan, Hospital Ward, Banstal, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Leena Netam W/o Shri Ashutosh Netam, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 204, City Heart Residency, Kailash Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Minor Daughter Kumari Prachi Netam D/o Shri Ashutosh Netam Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Leena Netam, R/o House No. 204, City Heart Residency, Kailash Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Minor Daughter Kumari Akshisha Netam D/o Shri Ashutosh Netam Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Leena Netam, R/o House No. 204, City Heart Residency, Kailash Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Minor Daughter Kumari Advita Netam D/o Shri Ashutosh Netam Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Leena Netam, R/o House No. 204, City Heart Residency, Kailash Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harsh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 110/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC ;led by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.3 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.4. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant was married to the respondent No.1 as per the Hindu Law and Ritual on 27-04-2009. Out of wedlock, three children, respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 were born. The case of the applicant is that the two daughters, Akshisha Netam and Advita Netam are not born from the conjugal relationship between both the parties. However, just to harass the applicant the respondents have ;led an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance from the applicant. 4. The applicant herein has ;led 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 ;led by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.3 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.4. 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 respondent No.1 is working as a Teacher herself and she is earning approximately Rs.30,000/- as a monthly salary due to which the respondent No.1 is able to ful;ll her basic need and she can take proper care and upbringing of 3 her two children. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 illegality and in;rmity 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 certi;ed 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