1 CGHC010271232026 2026:CGHC:30177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 888 of 2026 Pushparaj Mahilang S/o Shri Hemant Mahilang Aged About 25 Years R/o Motimpur Kala, P.S. And Tehsil Kharora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Chanchal Verma D/o Punit Ram Verma Aged About 23 Years W/o Pushparaj Mahilang, R/o Village Kanki, P.S. And Tahsil Kharora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Bhumika D/o Pushparaj Mahilang Aged About 2 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Chanchal Verma, R/o Village Kanki, P.S. And Tehsil Kharora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. I.A. No.2 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 08 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the applicant. It was alleged that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 17.06.2022 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur, and thereafter both of them resided together as husband and wife. According to the non-applicants, after some time of the marriage, the behaviour of the applicant and his family members changed and non- applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It was further alleged that during her pregnancy, the applicant left non- applicant No. 1 at her parental home. Subsequently, when she returned to her matrimonial home, the applicant and his family members allegedly demanded dowry from her father and, upon his refusal, continued to harass her. It was further alleged that non- applicant No. 2 was born on 31.07.2023 and thereafter, on 17.08.2023, non-applicant No. 1 was assaulted and driven out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside with her parents along with the minor child. Claiming that she had no independent source of income and that the applicant had neglected and refused to maintain them, the non-applicants filed the aforesaid application for maintenance. 5. In response, the applicant entered appearance and filed his reply denying the allegations levelled against him. He contended that he had never subjected non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty and that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. The 3 applicant further asserted that non-applicant No. 1 is an educated woman and is engaged in private work, earning sufficient income to maintain herself and the minor child. 6. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 11.03.2026, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 from the date of the application, i.e., 28.02.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law, suffers from perversity, and has been passed without proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court has erred in granting maintenance to non-applicant No. 1 despite the fact that she is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. He submits that the alleged marriage was performed at an Arya Samaj Mandir and, according to the applicant, the same does not constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of law in the absence of proof of compliance with the essential legal requirements. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court dated 30.06.2026 passed in Criminal Revision No. 788/2026, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A/2. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and has been residing separately at her parental house despite the applicant’s willingness to keep and maintain both the non-applicants. 4 He contends that the applicant made sincere efforts to bring them back, but non-applicant No. 1 refused to cohabit with him. It is also submitted that non-applicant No. 1 is an educated woman and is engaged in private employment, thereby having sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor child. On the other hand, the applicant is a labourer with no permanent source of income and is not financially capable of paying the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court. It is further argued that the maintenance awarded in favour of the non-applicants is excessive and disproportionate to the applicant’s earning capacity. Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material available on record and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the facts and circumstances of the case, has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has duly taken into account the admitted relationship between the parties, the fact that non-applicant No. 1 and the minor child were residing separately, and the allegations regarding neglect and refusal on the part of the applicant to maintain them. The learned Family Court has also considered the respective contentions of the parties with regard to 5 their income, financial capacity, and entitlement to maintenance and, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, arrived at a finding that the non-applicants were entitled to maintenance. The quantum of maintenance awarded, namely Rs.4,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2, cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary and appears to have been determined keeping in view the needs of the claimants as well as the earning capacity of the applicant. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to transmit the certificate copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal