1 2025:CGHC:60962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1521 of 2025 Krishna Basor S/o Late Sonu Basor Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Basor Mohalla, Ramhepur, P.S. And Tahsil- Lormi, District Mungeli C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi Basor W/o Krishna Basor, D/o Chhotelal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Kishor Kuamr S/o Krishna Basor Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Basor, R/o Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Kamal Basor S/o Krishna Basor Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Basor, R/o Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Sanjay Kumar Basor S/o Krishna Basor Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Basor, R/o Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Ku. Pari D/o Krishna Basor Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Santoshi Basor, R/o Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and please be set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized about 25–30 years ago at Village Lamkena, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock four children, namely respondent Nos. 2 to 5, were born. It was further alleged that after living a peaceful matrimonial life for several years, in the year 2021 the applicant started quarreling with and assaulting her and the children on account of his alleged illicit relationship with another woman and ultimately drove them out of the matrimonial home. The wife claimed that she and the children are unable to maintain themselves, whereas the applicant is working as a property dealer earning about Rs.50,000– 60,000 per month and is also engaged in crop business earning about Rs.40,000 per month, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month. The applicant filed his reply denying the allegations and asserting that the wife was living separately without any justifiable reason. However, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 (wife), Rs.1,000/- per month to 3 respondent No. 4 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the learned Court below granted maintenance aggregating to Rs.4,500/- per month in favour of respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 without there being any cogent material or documentary evidence on record to establish the income of the applicant or his alleged engagement in property dealing. It is further submitted that the respondents failed to produce any documents regarding their own expenses or financial needs, and in the absence of any reliable evidence relating to the means of the applicant and the necessities of the respondents, the learned Family Court ought not to have granted maintenance. Thus, the impugned order suffers from illegality, impropriety and incorrectness and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and correctly exercised its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order dated 10.11.2025. The Court, 4 having found the marital relationship between the parties and the existence of dependent children to be undisputed, and being satisfied that the wife and the minor children were unable to maintain themselves, properly assessed the needs of the claimants and the earning capacity of the applicant and, on a judicious and reasonable evaluation, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by awarding a modest amount of maintenance, namely Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No. 4 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No. 5. The impugned order is well-reasoned, based on settled principles of law. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan