1 2026:CGHC:8093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 950 of 2024 Uday Bhan Rai S/o Chandra Shekhar Rai Aged About 58 Years R/o Near Housing Board Colony Amar Nagar, Paraskol, Tehshil, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Temporary Address- Ward No. 1, Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund, Tehshil, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt Nitu Rai W/o Uday Bhan Rai Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Housing Board Colony Amar Nagar, Paraskol, Tehshil, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aayush Rai S/o Uday Bhan Rai Aged About 14 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Nitu Rai, R/o Near Housing Board Colony Amar Nagar, Paraskol, Tehshil, Thana And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate. For respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family 2 Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.161/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of maintenance from the present applicant, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 161/2022 before the learned Court below. In the said application, respondent No.1 claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that respondent No.2 is the son born out of their wedlock. A copy of the application under Section 125 CrPC has been annexed as Annexure A-2. Upon notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Court and filed his written statement/reply denying the allegations made by the respondents. In his reply, the applicant specifically contended that there was no valid marriage between him and respondent No.1 and that they were merely in a live-in relationship with mutual consent. It was further contended that respondent No.2 was not born out of any lawful relationship with the applicant. A copy of the written statement filed by the applicant has been annexed as Annexure A-3. After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Court below passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 holding the applicant liable to 3 pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1. A copy of the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 has already been annexed as Annexure A-1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present proceedings challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order on the grounds mentioned herein below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts in awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. The impugned order has been passed without considering the material contradictions and admissions made during cross-examination, and therefore suffers from non-application of mind. He further submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the respondents were residing in the residential premises provided by the applicant and that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty or had forcibly ousted her from the house. On the contrary, it was the applicant’s case that due to the conduct of Respondent No.1, he was compelled to leave the house. The Court further fixed the amount of maintenance without any proper enquiry or reliable evidence regarding the income of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Court also failed to consider that respondent No.1 was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that their relationship was in the nature of a live-in arrangement. The 4 alleged marriage was not proved by cogent evidence, and respondent No.2 was also not proved to be born out of a lawful wedlock. Despite these findings, the Court awarded an excessive and unreasonable amount of maintenance to respondent No.1. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, holding that though the marriage between the parties was not formally proved by documentary evidence, the material on record established that the respondent and the applicant had lived together for about 13–14 years in a live-in relationship as husband and wife. The Court further observed that in view of the long cohabitation and their social representation as spouses, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the status of a wife for the limited 5 purpose of claiming maintenance. The learned Court further held that the respondent No.1 had sufficient and reasonable cause to reside separately, as the allegations made by the applicant regarding misconduct and assault were not substantiated by any cogent evidence. It was also found that respondent No.1 was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant, being employed and earning approximately Rs.45,000/- per month, was financially capable but had neglected to provide any maintenance since their separation. However, with regard to respondent No.2, the Court held that paternity was not conclusively proved, particularly in view of discrepancies in the birth certificate and the refusal of the respondent to undergo DNA testing, leading to an adverse inference. Accordingly, maintenance was denied to respondent No.2, and the application was partly allowed only in favour of respondent No.1. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil