1 2025:CGHC:29587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1059 of 2016 1 - Smt. Son Kunwar W/o Venaidik Kalyan Panna Aged About 30 Years R/o Atal Awas Kharmora, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Somya D/o. Venaidik Kalyan Panna Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Son Kumar R/o Atal Awas Kharmora, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Anshu S/o Venaidik Kalyan Panna Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Son Kumar R/o Atal Awas Kharmora, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Venaidik Kalyan Panna S/o Late Petrus Panna Aged About 45 Years R/o. Qtr. No. 1349, A - Block Kaveri Vihar, Ntpc Jamnipali, Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sannat holding the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Agrawal holding the brief of Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Anurag Agrawal, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.06.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.17/2014, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.3 only towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court in Korba, seeking maintenance. The Court concluded that applicant No.2 was not the respondent’s legal daughter and that applicant No.3 was born out of the relationship between the applicant No.1 and the respondent. However, since the applicant No.1 and the respondent were not married according to rituals, the court dismissed the maintenance claim for the applicants No.1 & 2. The Family Court awarded the applicant No.3 a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- by order dated June 22, 2016. However, this amount is considered inadequate given the applicant No.3’s status as a minor requiring care and the fact that she is separated from the respondent. The respondent, an NTPC employee earning Rs.35,000/- per month and owning immovable properties, has the financial capacity to provide more substantial support. Therefore, the maintenance 3 amount for applicant No.3 should be enhanced. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant No.1 needs to work elsewhere to support herself financially. If the maintenance amount is not increased, she would not be able to devote sufficient time and care to applicant No.3. The current maintenance of Rs.2,000 per month granted by the Court is insufficient. He further submits that applicant No.1 is already caring for the applicant No.2, her child from a previous marriage, without seeking any enhancement for them. She is only requesting an increase in maintenance for applicant No.3. Given the respondent’s income, the maintenance for applicant No.3 should be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month. This increase would enable applicant No.1 to provide better care for applicant No.3 without compromising her own livelihood. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 4 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.3 only towards maintenance observing that applicant No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicant No. 2 is not the child born to the respondent. Therefore, they are not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. However, applicant No. 3 is the illegitimate child of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance under the law, hence, the Family Court concluded that the application of applicants No. 1 & 2 is dismissed, but the application for applicant No. 3 is allowed. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil