1 2026:CGHC:5353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1013 of 2023 Shankar Verma S/o Shri Sheetal Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Jiya, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vidya Verma D/o Arun Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And P.O. Jhal, P.S. Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hardik Verma Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian (Mother) Smt. Vidya Verma, D/o Arun Verma, A/o 28 Years, R/o Village And P.O. Jhal, P.S. Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “1. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of present case. 2. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No. 194/2023, in so far as the applicant No.2 is KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 concerned, in the interest of justice. 3. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application of applicant filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. by holding that the Non-applicants are not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant. 4. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order as per the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Hon’ble Court may deem proper.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant No. 01 were married on 22.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter, following the customary ritual of gauna, non- applicant No. 01 came to the applicant’s matrimonial home on 18.05.2016; however, within five months of the said gauna, non- applicant No. 01 gave birth to a child, namely non-applicant No. 02, on 22.10.2015, and since then the parties have not been residing together, it being pertinent to mention that there was no cohabitation between the applicant and non-applicant No. 01 prior to the said gauna. Subsequently, the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, which was allowed in M.J.C. No. 109/2019 vide order dated 19.01.2021, whereby non- applicant No. 01 was awarded ₹2,000/- per month and non-applicant No. 02 was awarded ₹1,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant also instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (Civil Suit No. 63-A/2019), while non-applicant No. 01 filed a petition under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (Civil Suit No. 09-A/2017); both matters were decided together vide 3 judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022, wherein the learned Family Court categorically held that non-applicant No. 01 had conceived prior to the marriage from another person and that such conduct amounted to “cruelty”, and on this ground the applicant’s divorce petition was allowed while the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by non- applicant No. 01 was rejected. On the basis of the said divorce decree and the findings therein, the applicant filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of maintenance before the learned Family Court. 3. The non-applicants filed their reply claiming entitlement towards maintenance (Annexure A-3), and the applicant produced the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2022, which was exhibited as Ex. P-1 through PW-1 on 26.06.2023 (Annexure A-4). Statements of the applicant (PW-1) and non-applicant No. 01 (N.A.W.- 1) were recorded, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure A-5. 4. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and material available on record passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 holding that non-applicant No. 01 had committed cruelty, as already determined in the divorce proceedings and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance and her maintenance application has been rejected, however, the Court further held that although non- applicant No. 02 is an illegitimate child, Section 125 Cr.P.C. entitles even an illegitimate child to claim maintenance and accordingly the non-applicant’s No.2 application was partly allowed, hence the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and unsustainable in 4 the eyes of law. It is contended that the learned Family Court, having categorically recorded a finding that non-applicant No. 01 was pregnant from another person prior to the marriage, has committed a serious illegality in nevertheless granting maintenance to non- applicant No. 02, who is not the child of the applicant. The applicant has duly proved his case for denial of maintenance to the non- applicants, but the said evidence has not been properly appreciated. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the statute contemplates maintenance to be paid by a person to “his illegitimate child”, whereas in the present case it stands proved that non-applicant No. 02 is not the biological child of the applicant and therefore the provision has been wrongly applied. It is also submitted that the applicant does not have sufÏcient income to maintain himself, yet this aspect has been ignored. The learned Family Court has thus failed to consider the evidence led by the applicant in its proper perspective. Therefore, he prays that the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the order after due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. The Family Court has taken note of the earlier judgment and decree of divorce wherein it was held that non-applicant No. 01 had conceived prior to marriage from another person and on that basis, rightly denied maintenance to her. However, so far as non- applicant No. 02 is concerned, the learned Family Court has recorded 5 a specific finding that even an illegitimate child is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the said finding has been returned after considering the statutory provisions and the object of the legislation, which is to prevent destitution and vagrancy. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, and the scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. The grant of maintenance to non-applicant No. 02 is in consonance with the beneficial nature of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the quantum awarded cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The grounds raised by the applicant relate primarily to re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible in revision. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal