1 / 6 2025:CGHC:10706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 288 of 2025 1 - Harishankar Sahu S/o Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Posted As Trackman Tailor, Railway Department, R/o Village Hardi (Mahamaya) Police Station Balauda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Hema Sahu @ Goldy W/o Harishankar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Present Address - Gitanjali City Phase -1, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Riyash Sahu S/o Harishankar Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Sahu R/o Present Address- Gitanjali City Phase -1, Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ankul Biswas, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. The instant criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1204/2022, whereby the application for grant of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.11 16:46:04 +0530 2 / 6 maintenance filed by the non-applicants under Section 125 of CRPC has been partly allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 6000/- to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2000/- to the non-applicant No.2 thus the total amount of Rs. 8000/- per month. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pleading that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 10.02.2018 in village Mulmula, district Janjgir-Champa according to the the ritual of Shaptapadi customs. A son has been born out of the wedlock, who is currently residing with non-applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that when the applicant used to go on duty, the father-in-law of the non- applicant had bad intentions towards the non-applicant No.1 and used to tell her to get a child from him. The non-applicant told this to her husband but the applicant did not pay any heed towards the same and did nothing. The non-applicant has been living separately from the applicant since 21 November 2021 because the applicant had thrown the non- applicant out after a fight. The applicant used to harass the non- applicant/wife by asking her to bring a car from her maternal home. The applicant/husband works in the railways. The applicant had told the non- applicant that he gets a salary of 60 thousand rupees per month. The non- applicant is unable to maintain herself and her son, therefore, the non- applicants should be given maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand rupees) per month from the applicant. 3. In his reply, the applicant has admitted to being married to non-applicant no. 1, having a son and working in the railways and has denied the 3 / 6 remaining facts and has stated that the non-applicant does not want to live in her in-laws' house, due to which she has made very dirty and disgusting allegations against the father of the applicant. The non- applicant has stayed for only 15-16 days after marriage. The applicant had kept the non-applicant in a rented house with him in Robertson. After this, the applicant was transferred to Naila Champa. Then the non- applicant did not want to come with the applicant because the applicant would be commuting to his duty from home. Due to this, the non- applicant did not vacate the rented house in Robertson for 02 months and threatened to commit suicide if she was transferred from here, which was reported by the applicant in Kharsia police station. The non- applicant is a highly educated woman, she runs tuition from where she earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The non-applicant is a free thinking woman, always talks to others on mobile, abuses on refusal, does not cook food on time and has never taken care of her old mother-in-law and father-in-law, nor has she stayed at her in-laws' place for more than 15 days. The applicant had to cook food for her old parents herself, due to which she is not able to do her duty. The applicant when went to see his son, the non-applicant, her brother and parents beat him badly with their hands and fists, a report of which was filed by the applicant at Mulmula police station. The non-applicant did not allow the applicant to have physical relations with her. Whenever the applicant spoke about having a relationship like husband and wife, the non-applicant always put a condition that she would have physical relations only if the applicant bought gold, silver jewellery, salwar and kurti for her, and when the 4 / 6 applicant took gold, silver jewellery and clothes, she used to send them to her maternal home. The applicant got corona on 03 May 2021, then the non-applicant and her family did not get the applicant treated in any way and threw him out of their house. The non-applicant's brother Vikas Sahu, sister Sushma Sahu, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to abuse and threatened that the non-applicant does not want to live with the applicant under any circumstances. On 14th May, 02 constables were called and the applicant was thrown out. The non-applicant wanted the applicant to die of corona and she could get his job, so he was thrown out of the house without any treatment. Therefore, the application filed by the wife may be rejected. 4. The learned family Court after evaluating the entire facts & circumstances of the case and evaluating the material available on record partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife and granted Rs.6000/- & Rs.2000/- maintenance to the non- applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the non-applicant has left the matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason. He would next contend that a report was also lodged for taking away the non- applicant No.1 by her parents but the police did not take any cognizance on the said report. He would next contend that the non-applicant No.1 is a highly educated lady and runs a tution and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the 5 / 6 documents. 7. Before the family Court the non-applicant No.1 has pleaded that her father-in-law had bad intentions towards her and used to tell her to have a child from him. The non-applicant No.1 informed about to her husband but he did not do anything. She further contended that the applicant thrown out of his house, therefore, she is living separately from him and used to torture her for demand of a car. The said statement has not been rebutted in the cross-examination. 8. Further, the non-applicant has stated that she is a house wife and has no source of income. The applicant has stated that the non-applicant earns Rs.10,000/- per month, however, no document with regard to income of the non-applicant has been produced. The applicant has admitted that he has filed an application for divorce because the wife is a free thinking person. 9. The non-applicant in her affidavit has given the details of her account wherein no entry of any income is recorded. Therefore, the family court has observed that in absence of any evidence i.e. documentary or oral it cannot be presumed that the non-applicant is capable to maintain herself and her son and the applicant is in service in Railway department and getting salary of Rs.37,376/- per month. 10. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the evidence of the wife, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned family Court has rightly granted the maintenance of Rs.8000/- to the non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 observing that 6 / 6 the wife is not able to maintain herself. Further, the applicant is a government employee and he is earning Rs.37,376/- per month, as such, he is in better position than the non-applicant as non-applicant/wife is a non earning lady who is not capable to maintain herself. Therefore, looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and also the fact that the Non-Applicant is not earning any amount as such she is not able to maintain herself, the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month so granted by the Family Court is just and proper which do not call for any inteference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu