1 2025:CGHC:32643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 363 of 2020 1. Gurbari Bai W/o Chiranjeev Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Manpasar, Police Station - Sarsinwa, At Present Sarsinwa, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Krishna Sahu S/o Chiranjeev Sahu, Aged About 11 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Gurbari Bai, R/o Manpasar, Police Station - Sarsinwa, At Present Sarsinwa, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3. Shubham Sahu S/o Chiranjeev Sahu, Aged About 9 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Gurbari Bai, R/o Manpasar, Police Station - Sarsinwa, At Present Sarsinwa, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Chiranjeev Sahu S/o Gendram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Manpasar, Police Station - Sarsinwa, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For applicants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Khushbu Sahu, learned counsel, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:31 +0530 2 appearing for respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the applicants seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 and proper maintenance be awarded in favour of applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant no. 1 and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, and out of their wedlock, applicants no. 2 and 3 were born, who are residing with applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and applicants no. 2 and 3 filed a joint application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. Copies of the applications under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/2. In sum and substance, the case of the applicants is that the marriage between applicant no. 1 and the respondent took place around 12-13 years ago, and out of their wedlock, applicants No. 2 and 3 were born. After some time, the respondent started subjecting applicant no. 1 to cruelty on account of dowry demands and used to harass her both mentally and physically, ultimately ousting her from the matrimonial home, due to which she has been living separately from the respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent is working as a mason, earning approximately Rs. 350/- per day, and in addition, he holds agricultural land from which he receives 60-70 bags of paddy every year. The applicants, having no source of income, stated that despite having 3 sufficient means, the respondent has not paid any maintenance to the applicants, and therefore, they filed the application for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicants No. 2 and 3 also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance, and vide order dated 10.05.2019, the learned JMFC, Bhatgaon, granted interim maintenance in favour of applicants No. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. After service of notice, the respondent filed his reply, wherein he denied the averments except the admitted facts and stated that applicant no. 1 is living separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that initially, the applicants filed applications for grant of maintenance before the learned JMFC, Bhatgaon, as the Family Court in District Balodabazar was not functional at that time. Later, when the Family Court was constituted in District Balodabazar, both applications filed by the applicants were transferred to the Family Court, Balodabazar. 7. Vide impugned order dated 09.12.2019, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicant No. 1, holding that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. However, no order has been passed in respect of the application filed by applicants No. 2 and 3. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order dated 09.12.2019 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore, liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in holding that applicant no. 1 is not entitled to maintenance on the ground that she is living separately without any 4 reasonable cause. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent used to torture applicant no. 1 both mentally and physically and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial house. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has made no effort to take back applicant no. 1, which itself indicates that he is not willing to keep the applicants with him. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent used to beat applicant no. 1. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant no. 1 has no source of income, and therefore, being the legally wedded wife, she is entitled to maintenance. Learned Family Court has committed a grave error of law in not deciding the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicants No. 2 and 3. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is working as a mason and also owns agricultural land, thereby earning a sufficient amount for maintaining the applicants. The applicants require proper food, essential articles, school fees, books, uniforms, and clothing, and in the present societal scenario, the applicants are facing great difficulties in maintaining themselves. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From perusal of the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that the application preferred by the applicants herein under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of 5 maintenance before the Family Court, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda- Bazar, was dismissed observing that the applicant No. 01 is living separately without any reasonable cause. 12. Considering the evidence available on record and pleadings of the applicants, the order passed by the learned Family Court in respect of applicant No. 1 is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 13. So far as applicant Nos. 2 and 3, minor sons, are concerned, whom applicant No. 1 is taking care of, and the respondent, being the father, has a liability towards applicant Nos. 2 and 3. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would be better to remand the matter back to the learned Family Court for deciding the matter afresh with respect to the maintenance of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of eight weeks from the production of the certified copy of this order. The matter, so far as it relates to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, is remitted back to the learned Family Court, Baloda-Bazar, district Baloda-Bazar (C.G.). 14. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of. 15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Family Court, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek