1 2025:CGHC:32635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 215 of 2021 1 - Smt. Roshani Sahu W/o Rajesh Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Civil Line, Parsabhader Road, Near Canal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Master Pulkit Sahu, Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Her Mother Smt. Roshani Sahu, W/o Rajesh Sahu, R/o Civil Line, Parsabhader Road, Near Canal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Rajesh Sahu S/o Pawan Kumar Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Beside Madeena Boot House, Main Road, Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.63/2019, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 only towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married according to Hindu customs in Baloda Bazar. After the marriage, they lived together in the respondent's village, Tumgaon, and had a child, Pulkit. Initially, the respondent treated the applicant well, but his behavior changed over time. The respondent and his family members, including his parents and brother, allegedly subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, demanding dowry and pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy. The applicant claimed that the respondent had an extramarital affair with another woman, Kalpana Sahu, and threatened to marry her. Despite attempts at reconciliation, the respondent's behavior did not improve, and he continued to torture the applicant. She filed complaints with the Sakhi Center and the police, but no action was taken. The applicant alleged that the respondent's cruel behavior made her life miserable, and she was forced to live with her parents in Baloda Bazar with her son since December 4, 2018. The applicant claimed that the respondent is a wealthy person with multiple properties, including land, houses, and businesses, and earns a significant income. She alleged that he has failed to provide for her and their child's maintenance, leaving 3 them in a difficult financial situation. The applicant sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 5,000/- per month for her son. Thereafter, the respondent field his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicants. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed to pay monthly maintenance to applicants as mentioned in para 1. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court did not consider the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which granted 25% of the income to the wife, therefore, the Court should enhance the maintenance amount accordingly. He further submits that the husband's salary and income were not disputed or rebutted. The appellant has no source of income and is living a deserted and humiliating life. The husband's salary has increased, and the Court should have enhanced the maintenance amount accordingly. The appellant requests the Court to modify the order and enhance the maintenance amount to 25% of the husband's income. 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. 4 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 applicants and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 only towards maintenance observing that it is undisputed that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. According to the provisions of the case, it is the moral duty and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, However, in this case, the applicant No. 1 has failed to prove through evidence the grounds for living separately from the respondent. Regarding the maintenance of applicant No. 2 (the child), the respondent has not denied being the father, and there is no evidence that he is providing for the child's maintenance during their separation. As the minor child is unable to maintain themselves, it is the moral duty and responsibility of the father to provide for their upbringing and maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that only applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance from respondent. 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 5 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil