1 2026:CGHC:7774-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 61 of 2026 Mantram Lodhi S/o Dujram Lodhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Jaitpuri, P.S.- Nandghat, Tehsil- Navagarh, Dist. - Bemetara, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Satvantin Bai W/o Mantram Lodhi Aged About 38 Years 2 - Ku. Madhuri D/o - Mantram Aged About 13 Years 3 - Devkumar S/o Mantram Aged About 16 Years Respondent No.2 and 3 both are minors and hence they Are Represented By Their Mother R-1, Presently all Residing At Village- Dhodhapur, Post- Chhinbhog, Tehsil- Pathariya, Dist.- Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 12/02/2026 1. The instant appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984) has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 15/10/2024 passed by the Family Court, Mungeli, C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal No.121/2023 whereby the application filed by the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and made averment that Respondent No.1 was married with the appellant in 2006 according to Hindu customs. Out of the wedlock a daughter, Madhuri, and a son, Devkumar were born. A few months after the daughter's birth, the appellant began harassing and abusing the Respondent No.1 over trivial matters and dowry, and forcibly sending her to her parents' home. The respondent illegally married a woman named Nandani Bai and kept her as his wife. On May 30, 2013, the appellant beat her and threw her out of the house, demanding cash from her parents. Since then, the Respondent No.1 is residing at her parents' home. The appellant owns 4-5 acres of two-crop agricultural land and is a fairly wealthy individual with other income. On this basis, a request has been made to provide maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to each of the applicants/respondents for their maintenance. 3. In the reply submitted by the appellant, the fact of marriage and birth of children has been accepted while all other facts have been denied. The appellant has accused the applicant/Respondent No.1 a woman of free thinking. The appellant has alleged that Respondent No.1 insisted on living separately from his parents and when the appellant refused the same, she tortured the appellant physically and mentally and went to her maternal home after a fight. The appellant has stated that the wife went to her 3 maternal home on her own will and they had parted ways in the year 2013 as per social tradition and the wife had received land in lieu of lifelong maintenance of the children and was supporting herself by farming on it. Therefore, it has been requested to reject the application filed by the wife. 4. The learned family Court after appreciating the evidence and the documents available on record allowed the application filed by the wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the wife and Rs. 2000 - 2000/- to Respondents No.2 & 3. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that since the appellant had already partitioned the piece of land bearing Khasra No.569/4 and 188/2, admeasuring 0.27 hectare in favour of Respondent No.1, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the impugned order passed by this Court may be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. At the outset, while the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court deemed it appropriate to examine the maintainability of the present appeal in view of the statutory scheme contained in Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as the impugned order pertains to grant of maintenance under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4 8. Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that the High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding. 9. The legislative intent is thus manifest that orders passed by a Family Court under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. (which includes Sections 125 to 128 relating to maintenance) are not intended to be subjected to appellate scrutiny under Section 19(1), but are amenable only to revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Act. 10. In the present case, the impugned order is admittedly one granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which falls squarely within the ambit of Chapter IX of the Code. In view of the specific statutory mechanism provided under Section 19(4), a FA (MAT) against such an order is not maintainable. 11. Consequently, the present FA (MAT) is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the present appeal shall not preclude the appellant from availing such remedy as may be available in law, including appropriate proceedings in revision in accordance with Section 5 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, if so advised. 12. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after retaining photocopy of the same. SD/- SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu