1 2026:CGHC:5383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1417 of 2024 Surendra Rajwade S/o Janki Ram Rajwade Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Salka, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Babli Rajwade W/o Surendra Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Salka, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Priyanshu S/o Surendra Rajwade Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Babli Rajwade Wife Of Surendra Rajwade, R/o Village Salka, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Today, the matter was listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. For the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 reasons mention, the same is allowed and the matter is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Surjapur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 71/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2/son towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the non- applicants, namely the wife and her minor son, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Surajpur, claiming total maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.5,000/- each). They contended that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized in the year 2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals and that out of the said wedlock a son, namely Priyanshu (non-applicant No.2), was born, who is presently residing with non-applicant No.1. It was further alleged that after marriage the applicant and his family members subjected the wife to physical and mental cruelty in connection with demands of dowry, including a four-wheeler and cash, and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home. It was also submitted that the matter was reported to the concerned police station and a crime was registered against the applicant and his 3 family members. The non-applicant No.1 further alleged that the applicant had contracted a second marriage with another woman. It was also stated that the applicant is engaged in the business of bricks and is earning about Rs.5,00,000/- per annum, is having agricultural land and is also doing milk business earning about Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, on the basis of which maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was claimed. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying all adverse allegations and specifically pleaded that non-applicant No.1 is not his legally wedded wife and that non-applicant No.2 is not his son, asserting that non-applicant No.1 was earlier married to one Shesh Kumar in the year 2005. However, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and without duly considering the specific plea regarding the marital status and paternity, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law and prescribed procedure, and suffers from gross illegality and perversity, therefore the same is liable to be set aside; because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that non-applicant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and non-applicant No.2 is not his son, and thus the order granting maintenance is wholly 4 unsustainable in the eye of law. Further, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without properly considering and appreciating the material documents and evidence available on record, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that non-applicant No.1 was not entitled to maintenance on account of her previous marriage, however, non-applicant No.2, being the illegitimate child born out of the relationship between applicant and the non-applicant, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and further observing that the applicant is financially capable but has willfully neglected to maintain non- applicant No.2. 8. 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal