1 2026:CGHC:19312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2026 Rajkumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Karpawand, Near Police Station, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rashida Bano Gupta W/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Atal Awas Kalipur, Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Maahi Gupta D/o Rajkumar Gupta R/o Atal Awas Kalipur, Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.03.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 75/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents have filed the application under section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 while claiming maintenance from the revisioner, the fact as projected by them that the respondent No. 1 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 being belonging to the Muslim community and the revisioner belonging to Hindu community, they have performed the love marriage on 15.04.2000 at Shiv Temple Karpawand and thereafter, they are residing as husband and wife out of wedlock they are blessed by two daughters, it is also pleaded that after marriage of the revisioner with the respondent No.1, their mother and father again made marriage of the revisioner with another lady, the revisioner is consistently bearing the expenses of the respondents and also taking care of the education and other expenses, but in the year 2022 the revisioner is stopped to maintain them and also not came to them, further the mobile phone is also switched off then the respondent No. 1 approached the revisioner, but her in-laws insult her and thrown away from the house. She is pleaded that the revisioner have moveable and immoveable property in his name and he is driving the rented vehicle and earning Rs. 30,000- 40,000/- per month, further the house is given on rent from that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, hence she is claiming Rs. 20,000/- for herself as well as minor daughter. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of total Rs. 6,000/- per month each 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 there is no 3 such documentary evidence produced before the Family Court to establish the marriage of the applicant with the respondent No.1, is suppose they are living for a long time, there is some document with that effect in possession of the respondent No.1. Therefore, the impugned 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 warranting 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