1 2025:CGHC:40564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 306 of 2024 Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Lecturer L.B. R/o Ward No. 28, Thetwaar Para, Mangal Bazaar, Chhwani, Bhilai, Tehsil Bhilai and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Varsha Sahu W/o Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o B.T.I Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prateek Sahu, Aged About 2 Years And 6 Month, S/o Rajesh Kumar Sahu, Through Natural Gurdian Mother, Smt. Varsha Sahu, R/o B.T.I Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 117/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:23 +0530 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (Prateek Sahu), totaling Rs.12,000/- per month. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and Respondent No. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife, having solemnized their marriage on 18.04.2018 at Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this wedlock, a son named Prateek Sahu was born. The marriage was arranged, and both parties entered into it willingly. No dowry demand was ever made by the applicant or his family members, either before or after the marriage. The couple initially began their matrimonial life with mutual understanding and lived together in the applicant’s house. The respondent/wife has alleged in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the applicant became a habitual drunkard, abused and assaulted her, and subjected her and her family to mental and physical harassment. She claims to have tolerated the abuse in an effort to preserve the marriage. She further alleged an incident on 14.10.2020, wherein the applicant, under the influence of alcohol, threatened to kill her and their son and physically assaulted her. She managed to escape and lodged a police complaint at Jamul. A criminal case arising from the incident was later closed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. Despite resuming cohabitation thereafter, the applicant’s behavior allegedly did not improve. In July 2022, the respondent/wife was allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home along with her son. She reported this incident to the police and has since been residing at her parental home in Mahasamund. She claimed that the 3 applicant has made no arrangements for their maintenance and that she is completely dependent on her aged parents. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mahasamund, seeking ₹25,000/- per month as maintenance, stating that the applicant is employed as a Lecturer L.B. at Government Higher Secondary School, Village Deverbija, District Bemetara, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 48,308/-. 3. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed a reply, denying the allegations. He contended that the respondent No. 1/wife did not want to live with his parents and insisted on living separately. He alleged that the complaints were false and made only to harass him. He further stated that he is willing to maintain the respondent and their child, and that she is residing separately without any justifiable reason. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing both parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (Prateek Sahu), totaling ₹12,000/- per month. However, the order impugned is based solely on the submissions of the respondent No.1/wife and fails to consider the contentions and evidence submitted by the applicant. The order is cryptic, non-speaking, and liable to be set aside. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to 4 the facts and circumstances of the case. The Family Court failed to consider that the applicant had raised a probable and valid defense by establishing that the respondent/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was unwilling to return. The applicant had actively participated in counseling proceedings and had expressed a genuine desire to continue living together as a family. Despite this, the respondent No. 1/wife chose to desert the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the learned court erred in not properly appreciating the cross-examination of the respondent/wife, wherein she admitted that the applicant’s brother had given her Rs. 50,000, thereby indicating that the applicant was indeed supporting her and their child financially. The court also ignored the fact that the applicant has an aged and ailing mother, who is dependent on him and requires continuous medical care and support—an important factor while determining the quantum of maintenance. The order is flawed as it is based solely on the unverified contentions of the respondent/wife without due scrutiny or proper legal proof of the documents submitted. The court failed to ensure that such documents were duly proved in accordance with law before treating them as evidence. The learned court also overlooked the need to discourage false assertions in judicial proceedings, which undermine the dignity and sanctity of the court. Moreover, considering that the parties have been married for over six years and have a child, and that the applicant is still making efforts to reconcile with the respondent on reasonable terms, the 5 impugned order may obstruct any possibility of a future amicable settlement. The order has caused serious prejudice to the applicant and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting its interference in revision. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 27.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 117/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting Rs.8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (Prateek Sahu), totaling Rs.12,000/- per month, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the respondents is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be 6 and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti