1 2026:CGHC:7140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1376 of 2024 Ashish Choubey S/o Shri Rajendra Choubey Aged About 36 Years R/o B- 172, Sector -B, Shahpura, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant versus Minor Anvika Choubey D/o Ashish Choubey Aged About 6 Years Through- Legal Natural Gaurdian Smt. Parul Mishra ( Choubey ), Aged About 31 Years, Daughter Of Shri P. K. Mishra, R/o C/o. Shri P.K. Mishra, Bangla No. 63, Avanti Avenue Society Avani Vihar Road, Daldalsivni, P.S. Mova, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 45/2023, whereby the learned Family Court have allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and granting amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts, in brief, is that it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent’s mother was solemnized on 05.05.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. From the said PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 14:08:09 +0530 2 wedlock, the minor respondent was born. 3. That the brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is stated that after the marriage, the applicant subjected the respondent’s mother to harassment and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands, as a result of which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The respondent is a minor aged about six years and is studying in Class I at Delhi Public School, Raipur. The respondent is also attending tuition classes. The annual educational expenses of the respondent are approximately Rs. 1,80,000/- (i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month). In addition, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month is incurred towards karate, dance classes, and tuition. Thus, the total monthly expenses of the respondent are approximately Rs. 35,000/-. The respondent’s mother has no independent source of income. The applicant is working as a builder, and his father is a retired officer who held a higher post in Kendriya Sahkari Bank. Hence, the respondent sought grant of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant filed his reply and denied all the averments made in the application. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed the order dated 10.10.2024, whereby the application of the respondent was allowed and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The impugned order dated 10.10.2024 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant has aged parents and other family members who are wholly 3 dependent upon him. There is no other family member to take care of his aged parents. Hence, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed. The applicant has already paid a one-time alimony amount of Rs. 36,50,000/- to the respondent’s mother pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2019 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim any further maintenance from the applicant. A decree of divorce has been passed between the applicant and his wife, and thereafter the respondent is not entitled to receive maintenance under the impugned order. Hence, the maintenance awarded is liable to be set aside. The respondent has failed to prove the income of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance awarded at Rs. 5,000/- per month is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The respondent unnecessarily created disputes with the applicant and pressurized him to live separately from his parents. The respondent was unwilling to continue marital life with the applicant, and therefore the impugned maintenance order (Annexure A-1) is liable to be set aside. The applicant is working in the private sector, and his aged parents are entirely dependent on his income. There is no other person to take care of his mother and father. The applicant is financially incapable of paying the granted maintenance amount, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the earlier round of maintenance proceedings filed by the respondent along with her minor daughter, the parties arrived at a compromise and a one-time alimony was settled, which has already been paid by the applicant. The maintenance amount awarded is excessive and on the higher side and is therefore liable to be modified. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order in the absence of the applicant, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The respondent has failed to 4 produce any documentary evidence regarding the income of the applicant, while the applicant is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the respondent is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti