##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5346

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 485 of 2024

Komal Kant Painkra S/o Shri Sant Sai Painkra Aged About 28 Years R/o

Kolhenjhariya, Police Station Tumla, Tahsil Farsabahar, District : Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh

... Applicant

versus

1 - Sukhwari Painkra W/o Shri Komal Kant Painkra Aged About 28 Years R/o

Amatoli (Patwajore), Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District :

Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Minor Aman Painkra S/o Komal Kant Painkra Aged About 4 Years R/o

Amatoli (Patwajore), Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District :

Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate.

Digitally signed

by For Respondents : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate.

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1.

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Also

heard Mr. Aman Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated

28.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur

(C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2021, whereby the learned Family Court,

partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the

respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the

allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to

the respondents.

2

3.

The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was

filed by the respondents against the applicant for payment of the

maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for both the

respondents. As alleged, the respondent No.1 is the wife of the

applicant and respondent No.2 is the son of the applicant. The

marriage of the applicant and respondent No.1 took place on

21.05.2020 in Jashpur. Out of their wedlock the respondent No.2 born

on 31.07.2020. The applicant is not looking after his wife and son,

therefore the said application for grant of maintenance was filed on

06.02.2021.

4.

The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has

denied the averments raised by the respondents. The learned Family

Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and

has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by

the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to

pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the

respondents. Hence, this revision.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned

order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and

evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the marriage

between the applicant and respondent No.1 took place when she was

pregnant of 06-07 months and due to the pressure of the family

members of the respondent and other reputed colleagues and said

marriage was solemnized, and the learned Family Court without

considering the said fact passed the impugned order awarding the

maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent form the applicant,

3

without conducting any DNA test of respondent No.2 who born just

after two months of marriage. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in

law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be

set-aside/quashed.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and

supports the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned

Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2021,

whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under

Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the

applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate

of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents, and he further

submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same.

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings

and documents appended thereto.

8.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties, and u