1 2026:CGHC:5529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 890 of 2024 Shri Nitesh Verma Aged About 33 Years S/o Shri Sushil Verma R/o Door No. 4, Harsha Apartment, Devi Si Gamini Street, Pallikarvai, Chennai 600100 (Tamilnadu), Present Address Through Usha Kiran Verma, Flat No. 1, Parshva Vihar, Gol Chowk, Rohnipuram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sakshi Verma, Aged About 31 Years W/o Nitesh Verma D/o Shri Ram Kumar Verma, 2 - Piyan Verma, Aged About 5 Years S/o Shri Nitesh Verma, Mother Smt. Sakshi Verma, Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Non- Applicant No. 1, Smt. Sakshi Verma, Both are R/o E- 18, Vijayapuram, Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Shri Shantam Awasthi, Advocate. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.02.02 17:26:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the court below and after being satisfied may kindly be pleased to:- 1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case number 80/2022, and thereby diminish the maintenance amount and/or 2. remand the present matter i.e. Misc. Cr. Case No. 80/2022 to the learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), and/or 3. pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Non-Applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 07.09.2021, alleging that 3 the marriage between Non-Applicant No.1 and the Applicant was solemnized on 04.11.2017 as per Hindu rites and that she was subjected to cruelty and desertion. It was alleged that after the marriage the Applicant and his family members subjected Non- Applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, demanded money, and in the year 2020 left her at her parental home without making any arrangement for maintenance The Non-Applicants further claimed that Non-Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and sought maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month for herself and Rs.20,000/- per month for the minor child. The Applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and contended that Non-Applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home without any just cause, is residing with her parents by choice, and has sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor child. It was further pleaded that the Non-Applicant No.1 lodged a false criminal case against the Applicant in Crime No. 51/2021 under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC, which is pending trial, and that the present maintenance proceedings were also initiated on false and fabricated grounds. The Applicant specifically contended that Non-Applicant No.1 suppressed her true income, submitted false and inconsistent affidavits in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, and that despite producing documentary evidence of her income and lifestyle, the same was overlooked by the Family Court. The Applicant further submitted that Non-Applicant No.1 is living a 4 comfortable life with multiple sources of income and there is no case of destitution or vagrancy as required under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Aggrieved by the order granting maintenance, the Applicant has preferred the present revision on the ground that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and disproportionate, considering the actual needs of the Non- Applicants and the proven income and financial capacity of Non- Applicant No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present revision has been filed by the applicant who is the husband of the non-applicant against the grant of maintenance to his wife and child but it is argued that the applicant is ready to pay the maintenance to his wife and child. It is further submitted that the coordinate bench of this Court on 03/10/2024 has directed that the applicant shall visit the house of the non-applicant to see his child but the order passed by this Court is not being complied with. 4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant has expressed his willingness to pay maintenance to his wife and child, this Court finds that the grievance raised regarding non-compliance of the visiting rights granted by the coordinate Bench cannot be adjudicated in the present revision arising out of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The issue relating to visitation rights is 5 a separate cause and the applicant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievance. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 5. With such observation, the revision stands disposed of. 6. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri