1 2025:CGHC:32927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 259 of 2022 1. Smt. Ramshila Sahu @ Rukhmani Sahu Smt. Ramshila Sahu @ Rukhmani Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Police Station Sarsiwa, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Parsada (Bade) Police Station Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Thakur Ram Sahu Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ramshila Sahu @ Rukhmani Sahu, By, Caste Teli, R/o Village Parsada (Bade) Police Station Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh. District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Thakur Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jagatram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Mudpar, Police Station Sarsiwa, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. C.R.Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:06:56 +0530 2 No.70/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/son till he attains the age of majority and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on 18.05.2016. They lived together happily for a year and had a child, Narayan, who is now 4 years old. Applicant No. 1 alleges that she was harassed, tortured, and beaten by her husband and in-laws, who also deprived her of basic necessities. She lodged a police report, but no action was taken. Applicant No. 1 is willing to live with her husband, but he is not interested. The Family Court rejected her maintenance application, but partly allowed the application for the child (applicant No. 2).The respondent works as a driver in a cattle hospital and earns ₹20,000 per month, and also has agricultural income of ₹4,00,000 per year. The applicants prayed for maintenance of ₹10,000 per month for the wife and ₹5,000 for the child. The respondent denied the allegations, and the Family Court framed issues and passed an order after considering the evidence. The applicants have filed a revision petition challenging the order, seeking relief in their favor. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant challenges the Family Court's order dated 10.12.2021, which dismissed her maintenance claim but partly allowed it for her child. The applicant, the legally wedded wife, had stated before the Family Court that she was willing to live with her husband, but he and his family members had left her and were harassing her. A police report was lodged, and although the family admitted their mistakes, the applicant withdrew the report. The 3 husband earns ₹20,000 per month as a driver in a cattle hospital and has agricultural income of ₹4,00,000 per year. The applicant is jobless, residing with her parents, and has no source of income. The Family Court erred in holding that the applicant was residing with her father willingly, when in fact, she was expelled from her matrimonial home. The Court should have considered the husband's income and the applicant's dependence on her parents. The applicant is entitled to maintenance, being the legally wedded wife, and the respondent's actions amount to cruelty. The order should be set aside, and maintenance should be granted to the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that applicant No.1 is living separately from the respondent voluntarily, hence, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. It is accepted that applicants No.02 is children of the respondent who is living separately from the respondent with his mother applicant No.1. In that situation, it is the moral responsibility and duty of the respondent to maintain applicants No. 2. Hence, it would be justified to get maintenance amount from the respondent to applicants No. 2. Therefore, the application is accepted in respect of applicants No.2 and the application is rejected in respect of applicant No.1 /wife. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order 4 passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti