1 2026:CGHC:8051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1925 of 2019 Ram Ratan Rajak S/o Kishun Rajak Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kamari, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Kumari Anchal Rajak D/o Ram Ratan Rajak Aged About 12 Years Respondent Mother Smt. Sarita Rajak, D/o Lalan Rajak, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House Of Smt. Sitamani, Takiya Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khushboo Khunte holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Balraj Gupta holding the brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /02/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition assailing the order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District– Balrampur–Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. R- 44/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court has modified the judgment dated 08.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District–Balrampur (C.G.) and reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent/applicant through her natural mother Smt. Sarita Rajak, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. Smt. Sarita Rajak also claimed maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from the petitioner/non-applicant. It was pleaded that the petitioner had solemnized marriage with Smt. Sarita Rajak about 12 years prior and that they were living a normal matrimonial life. During the subsistence of marriage, the petitioner allegedly developed an illicit relationship with Smt. Sandhya Rajak (bhabhi), assaulted the mother of the respondent, and drove her out of the matrimonial home. It was further stated that the applicant had no independent source of income to maintain herself. The petitioner/non-applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and contended that he had no source of income and that the applicant was not his legally wedded wife, and therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The 3 learned trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed an order dated 08.11.2017, rejecting the maintenance claim of the mother but allowing maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. The petitioner preferred a revision, and the learned Revisional Court, by order dated 02.07.2019, partly allowed the revision and reduced the maintenance amount to Rs.3,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and suffers from non-appreciation of material evidence. The learned Court failed to properly evaluate the pleadings and documents placed before it while granting maintenance in favour of the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner had duly proved the cruelty and the compelling circumstances under which he was constrained to leave the respondent, however, the same was not properly considered. A bare perusal of the evidence on record would show that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance. Moreover, the income of the petitioner was not proved, and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 4 submits that the learned revisional 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 petitioner, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District–Balrampur– Ramanujganj (C.G.) has modified the judgment dated 08.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District–Balrampur (C.G.) and reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month, holding that although the paternity of the minor daughter was duly established and the liability of the father to maintain her was affirmed, the trial Court had erred in assessing the income of the respondent at a higher side. Considering the admitted employment of the petitioner as a Constable, his stated net monthly income after deductions, and his responsibility towards aged parents, the revisional Court found it just and proper to partly interfere with the order only to the extent of quantum of maintenance, while affirming the remaining findings of the trial Court. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court, I am of the view that both the Courts have not committed any 5 illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil