1 CGHC010150512025 2026:CGHC:35322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 522 of 2025 Rakesh Kashyap S/o Shri Sewakram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years Occupation Business, Presently R/o Mission Hospital Road Bhojpur Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), Original R/o Village Hiragarh, P.O. Siud, P.S. And Tah Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Farida Anjum W/o Rakesh Kashyap Aged About 37 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Bajirao Para Behind Railway Station Maldhakka Road Raigarh, Tah And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Minor Aryan Kashyap S/o Rakesh Kashyap Aged About 5 Years Through Her Guardian Mother Farida Anjum, R/o Bajirao Para Behind Railway Station Maldhakka Road Raigarh, Tah And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the non-applicants. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants have <led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. The case of the non-applicants, as pleaded in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is that the non-applicant No.1 is a Muslim by religion, whereas the applicant is a Hindu. The non-applicant No.1 and the applicant solemnized a love marriage at Raigarh in the year 2013–2014. Out of the said wedlock, one son, namely Aryan, was born, who is presently about 5 years of age and is residing with the non-applicant No.1. It is averred that after the marriage, the non-applicant No.1 and the applicant resided together at Raigarh and peacefully discharged their matrimonial obligations. The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Hiragarh, Post Siud, District Janjgir- Champa, and used to visit his parental home from time to time to meet his parents. During this period, both parties were leading a happy married life. It is further averred that on one occasion, when the applicant had gone to his native village to meet his parents, the non-applicant No.1 telephoned him on his mobile phone in connection with some personal work. However, the call was answered by a woman who introduced herself as the wife of the applicant. The non-applicant No.1 was taken by surprise and 3 informed the said woman that she was already legally married to the applicant and that they had a son together. It was then that the non- applicant No.1 came to know that the applicant had deceitfully contracted a second marriage according to his own religion while keeping the non-applicant No.1 in the dark. The non-applicant No.1 has further stated that upon the applicant's return to Raigarh, she confronted him regarding the said incident, whereupon the applicant admitted that he had contracted a second marriage. He further disclosed that his parents had threatened to disinherit him from the family property and had compelled him to marry a woman belonging to his own caste and community. Thereafter, diCerences arose between the parties and the applicant gradually stopped visiting the non-applicant No.1 at Raigarh, deserted her, and completely neglected to maintain the non-applicants or even remain in contact with them. It is further averred that on one occasion, the applicant suddenly visited the non-applicant No.1 and by inducing and misleading her, took her to Janjgir, where he obtained her signatures on a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and presented the same before the Family Court. It is stated that only after returning home and examining the said petition did the non-applicant No.1 realize that the applicant had fraudulently obtained her signatures with the intention of securing a decree of divorce. It is the speci<c case of the non-applicants that non-applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and non-applicant No.2 is his legitimate son. The applicant is under a legal obligation to maintain 4 the non-applicants, however, he has deliberately neglected and refused to do so despite being <nancially capable. It is further alleged that the applicant owns agricultural land in Village Hiragarh and is also engaged in the business of purchase and sale of land, earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. On these averments, the non-applicants have prayed that the applicant be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the non-applicants. 4. The applicant <led his reply to the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and denied all the averments made by the non- applicants. 5. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to the minor son, i.e.,non-applicant No. 2, a total sum of Rs.4,000/- per month, payable from the date of <ling of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error of law and fact in passing the impugned order, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the applicant had speci<cally raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the application on the ground that non-applicant No.1 had failed to establish that she was the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is submitted that no documentary evidence, such as a marriage 5 certi<cate, marriage photographs, or any other reliable evidence showing that the parties had solemnized a marriage or had lived together as husband and wife, was produced before the Family Court. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court erroneously presumed the applicant to be the father of non- applicant No.2 merely on the basis of the birth certi<cate, despite the fact that the birth certi<cate neither conclusively establishes the paternity of the child nor mentions the identity details of the applicant. It is also argued that non-applicant No.1 had earlier <led a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, however, when she was directed to produce documents evidencing the marriage, including the marriage certi<cate and joint photographs of the spouses with their family members and friends, she failed to do so and ultimately, the said proceedings came to be dismissed due to non-appearance. It is further contended that although non-applicant No.1 had <led an aEdavit of one Phool Bai Sahu, who is stated to be her landlady, the said witness was never examined before the Court, and, therefore, the learned Family Court could not have concluded that non- applicant No.1 was the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Family Court itself recorded a <nding that the income of the applicant had not been proved by non- applicant No.1, therefore, the award of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he 6 prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the concerned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence placed on record, has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 ex-parte, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 from the date of <ling of application (Total Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of <nancial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance 7 so awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned orders and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OEce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal