1 2025:CGHC:51858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1267 of 2025 Chandraprakash Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gokul Nagar, Sasaholi, Police Station Tilda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 493114 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Priya Sharma W/o Shri Chandraprakash Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sitapar, Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Pin 493113 2 - Ku. Bhawya Sharma (Minor) D/o Shri Chandraprakash Sharma Aged About 8 Years Through The Walimata Priya Sharma W/o Shri Chandraprakash Sharma, R/o Village Sitapar, Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Pin 493113 3 - Manas Sharma (Minor) S/o Shri Chandraprakash Sharma Aged About 4 Years Through The Walimata Priya Sharma W/o Shri Chandraprakash Sharma, R/o Village Sitapar, Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Pin 493113 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /10/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.188/2024, 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.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and Respondent No.1 (wife) were in love and solemnized their marriage on 02.02.2016 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur, and have two children, respondent No.2, Bhawya and respondent No.3, Manas. Due to disputes between them, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 144 BNSS seeking maintenance, and the Family Court granted Rs. 13,000 per month. The applicant/husband filed detailed replies to both the main and interim applications along with supporting documents, challenging the maintenance claim. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, examinations, and documents, passed the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 188/2024, granted maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and respondent No.1 (wife) chose a love marriage on 02.02.2016. Soon after, the wife began suspecting the applicant’s character, alleging a second marriage based on false claims and some photographs of the applicant performing religious duties or speaking to a Jajman, which led to disputes. Despite this, the applicant continues to live with the wife and children in the same house, sharing kitchen and rooms, and bears all family expenses. The wife, though literate, filed a claim under Section 144(2) BNSS seeking Rs. 40,000 per month, which the applicant contests as baseless and exaggerated. The applicant, a small-time temple priest (Pujari), has no other immovable property or income, and the photographs cited by the wife merely show him performing religious duties, proving he has not engaged in any illegal or improper activities. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing that the respondent’s separation from the applicant is justified due to the applicant’s second 4 marriage and cruel conduct, and noting that the respondent No.1 has no independent income to maintain herself and her children, while the applicant is financially capable through his work as a priest and religious services, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the responders are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil