1 2026:CGHC:14284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 319 of 2020 Roshan Mishra S/o Ramkrishna Mishra, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shivom Agro Form Village Devada Police Station and Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. Mousami Mishra W/o Roshan Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Sadar Road Balodabajar Tahsil Balodabajar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Sivom Mishra (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04-04- 2025. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner :Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 :Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.3 :Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. The instant Petition filed by the petitioner is being aggrieved with the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 17/2019, arising out of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 150/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court, partly allowed the revision filed by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.03.28 15:54:41 +0530 2 the respondents, and ordered the petitioner that he has to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as maintenance. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent No.1/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance. After issuance of notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his reply, however, thereafter he remained ex-parte. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, vide order dated 14.03.2019, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and prayed for permission to participate in the proceedings. However, the same was not considered, and the maintenance order came to be passed. The applicant thereafter preferred Criminal Revision No. 27/2019 seeking to set aside the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 150/2017. The respondents No. 1 and 2 also filed a revision petition, registered as Criminal Revision No. 17/2019, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, heard both revisions together, as they arose out of the same order dated 14.03.2019. The learned Court dismissed the revision filed by the applicant but allowed the revision filed by the respondents, set aside the order dated 14.03.2019, and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, totaling Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has grossly overlooked the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and, in the absence of any cogent legal evidence, 3 wrongly held that the ex-parte evidence of respondent No. 1 remained uncontroverted merely because ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner. The learned revisional Court further erred in presuming that the petitioner has sufficient means from agricultural land and from running Shivom Cuniculture OPC Private Limited, without any reliable evidence on record. It failed to consider that the petitioner had already informed the concerned authorities regarding closure of his firm, Shivom Agro, and that he does not derive any income from agricultural land. The petitioner is presently not working as a Sarpanch and is barely able to maintain himself. His income is nowhere near Rs.70,000/- per month. In fact, he is not in a position to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Family Court failed to consider the financial condition of the petitioner and his willingness to keep and maintain his wife and child. However, respondent No. 1, without any sufficient reason, has refused to reside with the applicant and is voluntarily residing at her parental home along with the minor child, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court, in the absence of any legal evidence, erroneously held that the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and child and passed the impugned order. The learned trial Court did not afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. Despite filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner was neither permitted to adduce evidence nor to cross-examine respondent No. 1. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are unsustainable in law and the procedure adopted amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Both the learned trial Court and the learned revisional Court, without any reliable evidence regarding the applicant’s monthly income, have arbitrarily directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which deserves to be set aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the revisional Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the revisional Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the petitioner’ s side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the instant CRMP being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti/Rajshekhar