1 2026:CGHC:5772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1228 of 2024 Suresh Kumar Netam S/o Late Thawar Singh Aged About 41 Years Currently Residing At Shankar Nagar, Nawagarh, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) Clerk, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1 - Sohdrabai W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Netam, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Matia, Tehsil /district Balod (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Manbai W/o Late Thanwar Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Matia, Tehsil/ District Balod (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in MJC Case No. 17/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, 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 respondent No.1 is the spouse of the applicant, by virtur of their marriage solemnized in the year 2001, and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent No.2 is the applicant’s biological mother. The applicant was abandoned by respondent No.2 when he was 3-4 years old, and his upbringing was done by his stepmother, Jankibai. The applicant states that respondent No.1 and applicant lived together as husband and wife for only 2-3 years after marriage. After applicant’s father’s death, he was appointed through compassionate ghrounds in government service. The applicant’s father and respondent No.2 did not formally separate or divorce through social customs. Respondent No.2 was living in her maternal home in village Matia. The application under Section 125 of CrPC presented by respondent No.1 stating that the applicant does not provide for her maintenance nor her shares income from the agricultural produce along with a contention that she does not have any source to maintain herself. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondents. The learned Family Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and has allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 6,000/- 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 respondent No.2, the applicant’s biological mother, abandoned him when he was a young child of 3-4 years, leaving him in the care of his stepmother, Jankibai. Respondent No.2 did not participate in his upbringing and 3 failed to fulfill her parental obligations towards him, hence, she does not have any legal right to claim maintenance from him. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 entered into an adulterous relationship with Kamlesh Kumar, as admitted by her conduct of living with him as husband and wife for 9 months in the applicant’s residence. 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 no nay good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and 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 and original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar