1 2026:CGHC:8092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1013 of 2024 Khubiram Yadav S/o Late Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Carriage O#ce, Bmy Charoda, Railway Quarter House No. 356, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Lata Yadav W/o Shri Khubiram Yadav Aged About 34 Years Mobile No. 9516001984 R/o Near Adarsh Gyan School, Premnagar, Gudhiyari, Ps. Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Khubiram Yadav Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Lata Yadav, R/o Near Adarsh Gyan School, Premnagar, Gudhiyari, Ps. Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 27.07.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal M.C.C.No. 369/2021, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents 8led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month on the allegation that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that their relationship began in the year 2003 at Raipur, where they allegedly started living together and solemnized marriage in a temple, out of which respondent No. 2 was born on 29.07.2007. It was further alleged that the applicant, a government employee working as a welder in the Railway Department earning about Rs.40,000/- per month, later deserted them, stopped providing 8nancial assistance after November 2016, and contracted another marriage. The applicant, however, denied all allegations in his preliminary objection and written statement, asserting that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of one Prakash Vaishnav, that he married another woman on 30.04.2007 and has two children from that marriage, that he had no relationship with the respondents after 2005, and that a monetary settlement of Rs.2,00,000/- had already been made in 2016 pursuant to a compromise following alleged blackmail. After considering the pleadings and material on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent 3 No. 2 from the date of application, along with Rs.2,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Court is bad in law as well as on facts available on record, as the learned Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that they were merely acquainted with each other for a short period while residing in the same locality, and she has admittedly never obtained divorce from her husband, Prakash Vaishnav, in accordance with Hindu law or any recognized customary practice. The applicant, on the other hand, is a married person whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 with Santoshi, from which wedlock he has two children and is also responsible for maintaining his mother residing with him at Charoda. Learned counsel contends that the entire story put forth by the respondents is false and concocted with the sole intention of extracting money from the applicant, a government employee, and that respondent No. 1, despite being a married woman, has wrongly claimed the status of wife of the applicant an aspect admitted in her own deposition. It is also submitted that earlier, upon a complaint lodged by the applicant regarding alleged blackmail, a compromise had taken place between the parties in which the respondent No. 1 received Rs.2,00,000/- and assured that she would not initiate any further proceedings; however, due to monetary motives, the present 4 false and fabricated proceedings have been instituted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly arrived at a well-reasoned and legally sustainable conclusion that the respondents were entitled to maintenance. The learned Court below has carefully appreciated the rival submissions and material placed before it and, in exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, has partly allowed the application by awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of 8ling of the application, along with Rs.2,000/- towards litigation costs. The quantum so determined appears just, reasonable, and commensurate with the status, needs, and 8nancial capacity of the parties, and the 8ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles governing grant of maintenance. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi8ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan