1 2026:CGHC:7887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 242 of 2024 Kamalchand Baradiya Son Of Gyanchand Baradiya Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Gurudev Niwas, Near Vridha Ashram, Bhathagaon, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anjali Baradiya Wife Of Kamalchand Baradiya Aged About 33 Years Resident Of C/o Vishram Sahu, House No. 16/11, Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhatha, Tashil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akash Baradiya Son Of Kamalchand Baradiya Aged About 6 Years Resident Of C/o Vishram Sahu, House No. 16/11, Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhatha, Tashil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Anjali Baradiya.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava alongwith Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by learned Second Additional Principal 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.620/2016, 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.5,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents (wife and minor child) filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking maintenance. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 03.12.2015. Out of the wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. It was alleged that after marriage, respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members. During her pregnancy, she was not provided proper care and treatment by the applicant, due to which she returned to her parental home on 18.02.2016. A complaint was lodged before Mahila Thana, Raipur, where counseling proceedings were initiated. The applicant initially agreed to keep and maintain respondent No.1 and provide medical treatment. However, he later failed to appear in counseling proceedings, and the matter was proceeded under Section 155 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that respondent No.1 has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant has sufficient means but has neglected and refused to maintain the respondents. Hence, maintenance was claimed. The applicant 3 filed a reply denying the marriage and all allegations. He contended that respondent No.1 was merely working at his house on salary basis and no marriage was solemnized between them. He also alleged that the complaint before Mahila Thana was false and that his signatures were obtained improperly. On this basis, he pleaded that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 25.11.2023, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e., 30.08.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set-aside. The Court has failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, documents and evidence available on record and has arrived at an unsustainable and baseless conclusion while granting maintenance. He further submits that respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and no marriage was ever solemnized between them. According to the applicant, respondent No.1 was merely working in his house on salary basis. Further, the respondent No.2 was not born out of any lawful wedlock with the applicant. The complaint lodged before Mahila Thana, Raipur is stated to be 4 false and vague, and the police obtained the applicant’s signature on a statement prepared by them without properly explaining or showing its contents to him. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from a serious illness and has no source of income. He is not running any cloth shop or business at present. Moreover, the learned Family Court failed to consider his financial incapacity and wrongly awarded maintenance on the higher side. Furthermore, relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the impugned order deserves interference. 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.5,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance, holding that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 is his biological son, which stands proved from the evidence on record including the DNA report. The learned Court further held that respondent No.1 was residing separately for sufficient cause due to neglect and ill-treatment by the applicant and that she has no independent source of income. Though the exact income of the applicant could not be 5 conclusively proved, the Court concluded that the applicant is an able-bodied person having capacity to earn, and accordingly awarded maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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 Akhil