1 2026:CGHC:5538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 760 of 2024 Chhotelal S/o Late Soni Prasad Patel, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Dhondha, Police Chowki-Revati, Tahsil-Pratappur, District-Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sarita Patel W/o Shri Chhotelal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhondha, Police Chowki Revati, Tahsil- Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), Presently Resided At Shrinagar, Patrapali, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, Tahsil And Distrit-Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Roshani Patel D/o Shri Chhotelal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dhondha, Police Chowki Revati, Tahsil- Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), Presently Resided At Shrinagar, Patrapali, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, Tahsil And Distrit-Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Family Court Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.03/2024, arising out of order dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.167/2022, whereby, 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.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- 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 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Surajpur, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 167/2022, alleging that the marriage between the applicant and Respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 1999 as per Hindu rites, and that Respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock in the year 2003. It was alleged that the applicant subjected the respondents to cruelty and ill-treatment and ultimately ousted them from the matrimonial home. The respondents claimed that the applicant has sufficient means and earns Rs. 1.00 to 1.50 lakh per month, and sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and contending that the respondents voluntarily left the matrimonial home and are not entitled to maintenance. It was further pleaded that Respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded 3 wife of the applicant and Respondent No.2 is not his daughter, and that Respondent No.2 is a major. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence and hearing both sides, partly allowed the application vide order dated 21.11.2023, granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to Respondent No.2. The applicant’s application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2024, which has led to the filing of the present criminal revision challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material placed before it. The learned Court failed to correctly evaluate the oral and documentary evidence, particularly with regard to the income and financial capacity of the Petitioner, which the Respondents failed to prove. He further submits that the learned Family Court adopted an arbitrary approach in partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and dismissing the Petitioner’s application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., resulting in grant of maintenance which is excessive and disproportionate considering the financial condition, liabilities, and medical status of the Petitioner, who is suffering from diabetes and hypertension and is undergoing continuous medical treatment. He also submits that the learned 4 Family Court failed to consider the material fact that Respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of another person, namely Vinod Kumar Patel of Village Telimuda, Tahsil Baikunthpur, and that the subsisting marital relationship still exists, thereby disentitling her from claiming maintenance from the Petitioner, rendering the impugned order illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, holding that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, that the respondents had sufficient and justifiable cause to live separately due to cruelty, that respondent No.1 is unable to maintain herself and respondent No.2 is dependent, and that the applicant, being a person having sufficient means from agricultural land and allied resources, neglected and failed to maintain them, thereby entitling the respondents to maintenance. Thereafter, the husband preferred application under Section 126(2) of CrPC, which was also dismissed by the learned Family Court, holding that the applicant failed to establish sufficient and bona fide cause for his absence on the relevant dates, as no 5 reliable oral evidence or cogent medical record was produced to substantiate the plea of prolonged illness, and the medical prescription relied upon was found inadequate and unconvincing, consequently, the grounds for setting aside the ex parte proceedings were rejected and the application was dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal