1 2026:CGHC:7416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 772 of 2022 Sewadas Manikpuri S/o Sheetaldas Manikpuri Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Chilamgota, Police Station Mangchuwa, Tahsil Doundilohara,, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kumari Sakhi D/o Sewadas Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Chilamgota, Police Staiton Mangchuwa, Tahsil Doundilohara,, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.F-49/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance. It was pleaded that the marriage of Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri, mother of the respondent, was solemnized with Sunil Das, younger brother of the present applicant, in the year 2012. In March, 2018, when Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri was carrying pregnancy of about 7–8 months and her husband had gone to Chowki for livelihood, the present applicant allegedly entered her house at night and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter repeatedly established physical relations under threat. It was further alleged that the applicant took her to Ojhar, Nasik (Maharashtra), where he kept her for about three months and continued to have physical relations with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. Upon learning about the pregnancy, he allegedly administered certain tablets to her and abandoned her. On 19.11.2019, she lodged a report against the applicant, pursuant to which offences under Sections 323, 506, 315, 366 and 376(2)(च) (ज) of the IPC were registered, and the criminal case is pending trial. On 11.08.2020, she gave birth to a female child (respondent herein), who is residing with her. It was pleaded that the applicant is the biological father of the child and is not providing any maintenance, and since the mother has no independent source of 3 income, maintenance was sought. The applicant filed reply denying the allegations and contending that the respondent is not his daughter and that a false criminal case has been lodged against him. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 18.07.2022, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent, against which the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 is bad in law, arbitrary, perverse and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has erred in holding that the non-applicant is the illegitimate child of the applicant without there being any cogent and reliable evidence to establish paternity. The applicant has consistently denied any cohabitation or physical relationship with Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri and contended that the criminal case lodged against him is false and still pending trial. He further submits that the learned Family Court has further failed to appreciate the material admissions of Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri that on 19.02.2019 she had left without informing her family, pursuant to which a missing report was lodged by her father. On 17.11.2019, she returned to her parental home and her statement was recorded at Police Station, Balod, wherein she stated that no incident had taken place against her, and she was thereafter handed over to her husband Sunil Manikpuri, with whom she has been residing. The non-applicant was born on 11.08.2020, which 4 clearly indicates that the child was born out of the wedlock of Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri and her husband. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider this aspect, particularly the inconsistency regarding the alleged period of pregnancy. He also submits that the paternity of the non-applicant has not been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, the direction to pay maintenance is unsustainable. The learned Family Court has also awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month without properly considering the financial condition and limited income of the applicant. It is well settled that relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted as a matter of right in absence of proof of entitlement, and the amount awarded is excessive and liable 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.2,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, 5 holding that the minor child Kumari Sakhi was born out of the physical relationship between the applicant and Smt. Sandhya Manikpuri and, therefore, is entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the mother of the child is unable to maintain her and that the applicant, being the biological father and having sufficient means, has neglected to maintain the minor child. Consequently, the application was partly allowed to the extent of granting monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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. 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 Kunal