1 2026:CGHC:2801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 841 of 2023 Siyaram Banjare S/o Late Shri Bhaktu Ram Banjare Aged About 51 Years R/o Qr. No. C-49 Subhash Block Secl, P.S. And Tahsil- Kotwali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Radha Bai W/o Siyaram Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Qr. No. C-49 Subhash Block Secl, P.S. And Tahsil- Kotwali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Sneha Banjare D/o Siyaram Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Qr. No. C-49 Subhash Block Secl, P.S. And Tahsil- Kotwali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Cri. M.J.C. No.134/2019, whereby, the learned Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant admitted his marriage with Respondent No.1 Smt. Radha Bai Banjare and the birth of children from the wedlock, including Respondent No.2 Ku. Sneha Banjare, but contended that the major children are earning and self-sufficient. He alleged harassment by his wife and stated that due to a housing loan of Rs.30 lakhs with a monthly EMI of ₹50,000/-, he was unable to pay the claimed amount, while denying allegations of an illicit relationship. After considering the evidence, the learned Family Court by order dated 11.04.2023 partly allowed the application and directed payment of Rs.9,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6,000/- per month to the daughter, which order is challenged by the applicant as illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the facts and law on record, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties while granting maintenance to the respondents. He further submits that the application under Section 125 CrPC was filed after about 32 years of marriage, suffering from gross delay, and 3 Respondent No.2 is a major daughter who is gainfully employed as a Sports Teacher at Bindas Public School, SECL, having sufficient income to maintain herself. Despite this, and without examining Respondent No.2 before the Court, maintenance has been wrongly awarded in her favour. He also submits that the learned Family Court granted maintenance on the higher side without correctly assessing the actual income and liabilities of the petitioner, ignoring the fact that the respondent wife is residing in the SECL quarter allotted to the petitioner and that other children are also earning independently. The Court failed to establish the petitioner’s income and ignored material evidence showing that Respondent No.2 has sufficient means, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.2, who is the daughter born out of the wedlock between the parties, towards maintenance, observing that 4 respondent No.1 had sufficient and justifiable reasons to live separately due to cruelty and neglect, that she was unable to maintain herself, and that the applicant, being gainfully employed and having sufficient earning capacity, was legally bound and financially capable of maintaining the respondents despite his plea of loan liabilities, therefore, the Family Court concluded that 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 parties 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. 9. 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 Akhil