1 2026:CGHC:4429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 196 of 2024 Madhav Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Semra, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Bevarti, Police Station Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Khelan Bai W/o Madhav Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Semra, P.S. Shihawa, Tahshil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aryan Kumar Sahu S/o Madhav Sahu Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Guardian Mother Smt. Khelan Bai W/o Madhav Sahu R/o Village Semra, P.S. Shihawa, Tahshil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the record of the case and thereafter allow the petition and set- aside the impugned order dated 17-01- 2024, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents 7led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, pleading that the marriage between respondent No.1 and the applicant was solemnized in the year 2002 and out of the said wedlock a son, namely Aryan Sahu, was born in the year 2004, it was alleged that after some time of marriage the applicant subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty, had an illicit relationship with another woman, ultimately deserted and ousted her from the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside with her minor son at Village Semra without any independent source of income, it was further pleaded that the applicant possesses 10–12 acres of agricultural land, owns a pick- up vehicle, is engaged in purchase and sale of rice, grains and seeds and earns about Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum, and on these grounds maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was claimed; upon service of notice, the applicant 7led his reply denying the allegations and disputing the marital relationship as well as paternity of respondent No.2, contending that he had married one Yashoda Sahu in the year 2003 according to social customs and that two children were born out of the said wedlock, and asserting that the present claim was false and fabricated, after hearing both the parties and appreciating the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by impugned order dated 17.01.2024, partly allowed the application holding that the applicant has su?cient means while the respondents have none, and accordingly directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to 3 respondent No.1, Smt. Khelan Bai, and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, Aryan Sahu. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous and therefore liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material admissions and evidence available on record. It is speci7cally contended that respondent No.1 herself admitted in her statement before the Court that she is legally married to one Ravi Dewangan and that no decree of divorce has been obtained till date, and therefore she cannot be treated as the legally wedded wife of the present applicant and is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that in view of the subsisting marriage of respondent No.1 with Ravi Dewangan, the alleged marriage with the present applicant is void and a nullity in the eyes of law, disentitling her from any bene7t under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 is also not born out of any wedlock between the applicant and respondent No.1 and, therefore, he too is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. It is also urged that the application for maintenance has been 7led after an inordinate delay of about 15 years, which itself reAects absence of any marital relationship and establishes that the proceedings have been initiated only to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. extends its 4 bene7t only to a legally wedded wife and a child born out of a valid marriage, which aspect has been completely ignored by the learned Family Court. Lastly, it is contended that the applicant is merely a labourer with no stable or su?cient source of income and the learned Court, without proper application of mind and ignoring settled legal principles, has passed the impugned order directing payment of maintenance without any legal basis, which therefore deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. 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 Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after aFording full opportunity of hearing to both sides, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2024, as the learned Court has correctly recorded 7ndings that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves and that the applicant has su?cient means, the learned Family Court has judiciously exercised its jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by assessing the 7nancial capacity of the applicant, the needs of the respondents and the overall facts and 5 circumstances of the case, and has awarded a modest and reasonable amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, the 7ndings recorded by the learned Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are neither perverse nor arbitrary, and the maintenance awarded is just, fair and in consonance with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to prevent destitution and vagrancy. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi7ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan