1 2025:CGHC:45851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 204 of 2020 Ravikant Dubey S/o Late Ayodhya Prasad Dubey Aged About 54 Years R/o Near Pahad Pond Purani Basti, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt.Ranjna Dubey W/o Shri Ravikant Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Tilda, P. S. Tilda, District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Khileshwar @ Anant Dubey S/o Shri Ravikant Dubey Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Mother Respondent No. 01, R/o Tilda, P. S. Tilda, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow revision petition and set aside impugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge family Court KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Raipur, District Raipur in M.J.C. No. 553/2019, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the substance of the application is that in M.J.C. Case No. 230/12, Smt. Ranjana Dubey & another vs. Ravikant Dubey under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by order dated 14.12.2016, Ravikant Dubey was directed to pay a total sum of ₹5,000/- as maintenance to both the non-applicants. The prayer for setting aside this order has been made on the ground that the non- applicant–wife is engaged in business, earns a good income, and is capable of maintaining herself and the child. At the time of passing the order dated 14.12.2016, the applicant was a healthy government servant posted as a soldier. At present, he has retired from service and his financial condition is not sound. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside the order directing him to pay maintenance of ₹5,000/-. 3. The non-applicant No.1 has filed a reply and denied the allegations. She has prayed for outright dismissal of the application, contending that the applicant is a healthy and fit person. She has alleged that the application has been filed fraudulently and deceitfully with the intent to evade payment of maintenance, and that it is a concocted application. Hence, she has sought dismissal of the same. 4. After pleadings, the learned Family Court has recorded the statements of the both parties and after hearing the same, rejected the application of the applicant vide impugned order dated 05.12.2019. Hence this revision. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstance of the case. The learned Family Court has been committed error for appreciating the facts by ignoring the financial conditions of the applicant, he has retired persons and presently been illness and his treatment running continued. He further submits that the non-applicant No. 1 has obtaining the income from her business she has performing the shops in her material place. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the circumstances of the case which has been changed from the date of order was passed the maintenance order dated 14.12.2016 at that time the applicant was in government service now he has retired from his service that is changed the financial conditions of the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant/husband preferred an application for setting aside the said order and after hearing, the learned Family Court found that the applicant has failed to prove that there is no change in the financial 4 condition of the applicant/husband and dismissed the application filed by the applicant. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity 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 Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal