Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:36848
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 179 of 2024 Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Prem Lal @ Rikhi Lal Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill. Torla, P.S. Gobra Navapara, Abhanpur Raipur, (C.G.), Present Address Near Chandrakar Kirana Store, Ayodhya Nagar, Mathpurena, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant versus 1 - Rishab Sahu (Minor) Aged About 17 Years, Through Mother - Smt. Janki Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Virendra Kumar Sahu, Resident Of Vill. Torla, P.S. Govranavapara, Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sohel Sahu (Minor) Aged About 10 Years, Through Mother - Smt. Janki Sahu, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Virendra Kumar Sahu, Resident Of Vill. Torla, P.S. Govranavapara, Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
Order on Board 29.07.2025
1. Heard Ms. Anushree Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel the applicant.
2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No. 88/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI
2 by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- (each) per month to the respondents.
3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent's mother were married on 01.05.2004 at Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) as per customs of Hindu Rights and rituals. That the respondents are the two sons born out of their wedlock. The mother of the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C on behalf of the respondents alleging that the applicant had been cruel to the present respondents and had driven them away from their home. The applicant being an indigent person who earns his livelihood by working as a rickshaw puller, labor works etc. During the proceedings of the 125 CrPC the applicant was declared ex- party on 25.05.2023 even though he appeared on the very same day in second half time of Court with an application. However the Family Court did not accept his application and further rejected his application under
order 9 rule 7 CPC on 20.07.2023. Thus, the application was deprived of his right to cross examine the respondent.
4. The learned Family Court after taking the evidence passed the impugned
order, and has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- (each) per month to the respondents. Hence, this revision.
5.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned
order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is already under the responsibility of his old aged mother and handicapped brother with no any proper source of income. Therefore, the impugned
3
order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice Rajshekhar