1 2025:CGHC:61861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1525 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar Oti S/o Shri Chaitram Oti, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Salhebhatti, P.S. Aundhi, Tahsil Manpur, District Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rasida Oti W/o Shri Mukesh Oti, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Salhe (Mirche), Police Station Chilhati, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) Presently Resided At- C/o. Smt. Rupali Thakur, W/o Shri Prakash Thakur, Tulsipur Ward No. 16, Rajnandgaon City, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Harsh Oti, S/o. Shri Mukesh Oti, Aged About 08 Months (Minor) Through The Natural Guardian/ Mother, Smt. Rasida Oti, W/o Shri Mukesh Oti, R/o Village Salhe (Mirche), Police Station Chilhati, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) Presently Resided At- C/o. Smt. Rupali Thakur, W/o Shri Prakash Thakur, Tulsipur Ward No. 16, Rajnandgaon City, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 232/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.01 was solemnized on 27.04.2022 at Village Salhe (Mirche), Police Station Chilhati, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla– Manpur–Ambagarh Chowki, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that after about two months of the marriage, when respondent No.01 conceived and underwent medical examination, she was declared HIV positive by the attending doctor, which led to serious matrimonial discord between the parties. Owing to the ensuing disputes, the parties started residing separately, and respondent No.01 began living at the address mentioned in the cause title. Thereafter, respondent No.01 filed an 3 application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of a total sum of Rs. 35,000/-, alleging that the applicant and his parents are affluent agricultural landholders, engaged in dairy and pisciculture activities, that the applicant owns a four-wheeler, and that the family earns approximately Rs.20,00,000/- per annum. The applicant filed his reply to the said application, denying all allegations except the admitted factual aspects, and specifically contended that respondent No.01 was having an illicit relationship with another person, as a result of which she conceived within two months of marriage and was found to be HIV positive. The applicant further averred that, despite the said circumstances, he was willing to keep respondent No.01 with him without marital relations, but the same was refused by her, and she chose to reside separately. Upon consideration of the pleadings, framing of issues, and recording of evidence led by both the parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 15.11.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.01. Aggrieved by the said order, applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the same is contrary to the facts pleaded by the parties as well as the evidence brought on record. The learned Family Court has failed to properly and 4 judiciously appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, and has drawn erroneous conclusions without assigning cogent reasons. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has completely ignored the material aspect that the applicant is a person of meagre means, having a limited source of income, and is somehow managing his livelihood along with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents. Despite the said financial constraints, the learned Family Court has mechanically proceeded to award maintenance in favour of the Respondent, without assessing the actual income, liabilities, and financial capacity of the applicant. The quantum of maintenance so awarded is on the higher side and wholly disproportionate to the income and economic condition of the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has adopted an arbitrary and mechanical approach in allowing the application of the respondent, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 pay Rs.2,500/- per 5 month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance after appreciating the overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it stands established that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 is their legitimate son. It is further proved that respondent No. 1 is living separately for sufficient and justifiable reasons due to mental cruelty and neglect on the part of the applicant, and that both respondents are unable to maintain themselves. Considering the sufficient means and income of the applicant, he is legally bound to maintain the respondents, therefore, the Family Court concluded the the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil