1 CGHC010231222025 2026:CGHC:36278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 730 of 2025 G. Yeshab @ Aso S/o. G. Adiyya Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Service Senior South East Central Railway Chhabi Master, Grade - 02, Railway Station Bhilai - 03, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Sumitra Bai Jaoje W/o. G. Yeshab @ Aso Aged About 45 Years R/o. Near Shiv Mandir, Store Para, Ward No. 39, Purena Bhilai - 03, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 2. Deepak S/o. G. Yeshab Aged About 17 Years R/o. Near Shiv Mandir, Store Para, Ward No. 39, Purena Bhilai - 03, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Sakshi Gupta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been >led by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.18 16:10:41 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside /quash the dated 31.05.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1078/2018 by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that as per the case of the respondents, the respondent No. 1 and the applicant were in a love a@air approximately 27 years ago, and it has been alleged that the respondent No. 1 and the applicant solemnized their marriage 27 years ago at Shri Sheetla Mandir, Store Para, Bhilai-03, District Durg (C.G.). The respondent No. 1 has stated that she had three children who were born out of the relationship with the applicant, and thereafter, the fourth child, namely the respondent No. 2, was born. 4. The applicant has denied the allegation regarding the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1. He has categorically stated that he had already solemnized his marriage with Parvati Bai in the year 1988 according to Christian rites and rituals. It has further been stated that, in the year 2022, the respondent No. 2 got the name of the applicant recorded as his father in the school register. Therefore, the applicant has also >led a civil suit against the respondents seeking a declaration that the respondent No. 1 is not his wife and the respondent No. 2 is not his son. The applicant has further stated that the respondents, on the basis of false and fabricated averments, >led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the applicant. 5. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Family Court denied maintenance to the respondent No. 2 and awarded maintenance to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of 3 Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is partly erroneous both on facts and in law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. She submits that the order of the learned Family Court is based on conjectures and surmises and is not supported by proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. She further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly assess and appreciate the evidence on record, from which it is clearly evident that the respondents have not proved the alleged marriage between the parties. Therefore, it has not been established that the applicant is the husband of the respondent No. 1. She also submits that the learned Family Court has grossly erred in appreciating that the object of Section 125 of the Code is to provide a summary remedy to prevent dependents from destitution and vagrancy and to serve a social purpose. In the present case, the learned Family Court failed to properly determine and record a >nding as to whether the respondent No. 1 is legally the wife of the applicant. She also submits that the learned Family Court fell into grave error in observing that the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the applicant, whereas the applicant, in his statement before the Court, has categorically stated that he does not know the respondents and has denied any marital relationship with the respondent No. 1. She further submits that the learned Family Court has not recorded any speci>c >nding regarding the proof of marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish or support the alleged marriage between the parties. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, 4 District - Durg (C.G.), in Misc. criminal case No. 1078/2018. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek