1 2025:CGHC:40570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 288 of 2024 Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 201/13, Kharun Rail Vihar Colony, Station Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Office- Praveen Kumar Sahu, Acio-Ii Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (Mha), Govt. Of India, Circle Road, Churches Colony, Dimapur (Nagaland), Mobile No. 9039363167, 7987078483, Present Address- Praveen Kumar Sahu, G.B. Sensors, House No. 27-H, Churches Colony, Dimapur (Nagaland) ... Applicant versus Smt. Anandita Sahu W/o Shri Praveen Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o C/o Dr. Chandrakant Sahu, Sector-3, Street-1, Professor Colony, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravikar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No. 277/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:22 +0530 2 by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent preferred an application under section 125 of the CrPC against the applicant for grant of maintenance and claimed that the applicant is legally married wife of the respondent who entered into wedlock on 18.04.2017 at Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) by Hindu rites and rituals and presently they are residing separately. the application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was preferred by the respondent against applicant stating inter-alia that after the marriage, applicant and his parents started complaining about how they had brought the daughter of school director and ex-sarpanch, who had not brought the goods as per their expectation. The respondent's parents-in-law and sisters-in-law started taunting about the quality of ornaments and clothes and they expected minimum Rs. 12 Lakh to bring as dowry. The respondent continued to endure the torture in the hope that everything would be alright in future. It is further case of the respondent/wife that on 09.05.2017 before going to Twensang, she demanded the golden ornament from her mother-in-law who refused to give the same and told her to get some ornaments from her parental house and locked her room in which the golden ornaments of the respondent were kept by her mother-in-law. It is further stated in the application that after returning from Twensang, the behaviour of applicant was changed and he started physical and mentally cruelty against the respondent and also started abused in filthy languages and clearly told her to not join any job. Mother- in-law, elder sister-in-law and sister-in-law regularly tortured her in the name of house hold work and they also instructed to not join any job. The 3 applicant allegedly threatened the respondent that he has taken call detail of her mobile phone from her department as per which she has love affair with many persons. the applicant never fulfill the need of the respondent and she was unable to eat and wear as per her own choice. At the time of Rakhi festival the respondent complaint the cruelty and harassment to her parent then they tried to teach the applicant then the present applicant assured them for his good behaviour in future. The mother-in-law of the respondent/wife has taken the household work from the respondent es maid of the house. At the time of Teej festival, the respondent was directed to return back with a cash of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The respondent returned back after Teej festival to her matrimonial house and that time the present applicant was transferred Deemapur and there also the father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured the respondent/wife and her parent were told to take their daughter back. The parent of the respondent/wife went to matrimonial house of their daughter and took her to Raipur then the entire incident was disclosed by her to her parent and thereafter a meeting was called by father of the respondent/wife. It is submitted by the respondent/wife that after the meeting, the applicant accepted his fault and took the respondent/wife to his house but there were no change in the behaviour of family members of the applicant. The father of the respondent/wife went to the house of the applicant where the family members of the applicant/husband quarreled with the father of the respondent which was informed by him in Police Station - Ganj. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the 4 respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the respondent. 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 respondent is a highly educated woman and earlier also she was working in multinational company, thus, it is clear that she is able to maintain herself. It is also submitted that the family Court erred in granting maintenance from the date of the application, though as interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month was already awarded on 19.03.2019. 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 15.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No. 277/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and 5 documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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