1 2025:CGHC:40435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 170 of 2024 1 - Smt. Kanta Singh W/o Yuvraj Singh Aged About 37 Years Caste Rautiya, R/o Village And Post Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Sonu Singh S/o Yuvraj Singh Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Kanta Singh, Caste Rautiya, R/o Village And Post Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Yuvraj Singh S/o Bhuvneshwar Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste Rautiya, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village And Post Semarkachhar, P.S. And Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 93/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that the applicant No. 1 and respondent were having love affair and out of their wedlock, the applicant No. 2 has been born on 12.01.2020, but later on the respondent has left the applicant No. 1 due to which, social meetings were convened, despite this the respondent has performed marriage with other lady. The non-applicant is having sufficient source of income, despite this, he is avoiding to maintain the applicants, therefore they filed application for grant maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court found that the applicant No.1 has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is Malgujar and holding more than 50 acres agricultural land, from which he is earning a total Rs. 20 lakhs per annum, whereas the applicant No.1 is only getting Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 3 93/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar