1 2025:CGHC:40566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 299 of 2024 Jhalendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sarju Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village and Post Kodwa (Sasha), Tahsil-Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Surekha Sahu W/o Jhalendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years D/o Shri Vishwanath Sahu, R/o Village- Sarfonga, Post- Bhatbhera, Police Station- Nevra, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Warya (Wanshi) Sahu D/o Jhalendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 1 Year and 2 Months, Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian and mother Smt. Surekha Sahu, R/o Village- Sarfonga, Post- Bhatbhera, Police Station- Nevra, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:23 +0530 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case is that, the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating that Non-Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and their marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2016. Out of the wedlock, Non-Applicant No. 2 (a female child) was born. It was alleged that after marriage, Non-Applicant No. 1 went to reside at the matrimonial home, where she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members. During her pregnancy, she was allegedly ill-treated and later gave birth to a daughter on 20.07.2017 in a government hospital. After the child’s birth, the applicant and his mother allegedly refused to allow her to return to the matrimonial home and imposed an unreasonable condition that she should not use a mobile phone. Unwilling to accept this condition, Non-Applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home. She further stated that the applicant is employed at City Centre Mall, Pandri, Raipur, while she has no source of income. Despite this, the applicant has failed to provide any financial support, compelling her to file an application for maintenance. 3. Upon receipt of notice, the applicant submitted a reply denying all allegations. He stated that Non-Applicant No. 1 frequently used her mobile phone and neglected household duties, causing hardship to his elderly and infirm parents. He also alleged that she engaged in conversations with another person over the phone, which led to 3 disputes. Furthermore, she insisted on living separately in Raipur City, which he refused, preferring to reside in the village. As a result, she left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. The applicant further stated that on 13.03.2018, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (MHA No. 13-A/2018) before the Family Court, Balodabazar, for restitution of conjugal rights, expressing his willingness to resume cohabitation. However, Non-Applicant No. 1 was not ready to return and continued to live separately without sufficient cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the application should have been dismissed. 4. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 31.01.2024, directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to Non-Applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to Non- Applicant No. 2, with effect from the date of the application i.e., 26.09.2018. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Non-Applicant No. 1 frequently communicated with another person over the phone, which was objected to by the applicant and his parents, leading to frequent quarrels. The Court also overlooked the fact that Non-Applicant No. 1 was unwilling to reside in the village with the applicant and insisted 4 on living separately in Raipur. Upon the applicant’s refusal, she left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause and started living with her parents. The Family Court further failed to consider that the applicant had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (M.H.A. No. 13-A/2018) before the Family Court, Balodabazar, for restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his willingness to resume cohabitation. Despite this, Non-Applicant No. 1 refused to return, indicating that she is voluntarily residing separately without sufficient reason and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the learned Court ignored the applicant’s financial limitations, as he is engaged in a private job earning merely Rs.12,000 per month, while also supporting his aged and ailing parents—his father being paralyzed. It is a settled legal principle that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as an absolute right, particularly when the claimant is living separately without valid cause. The Court erred in awarding maintenance on the higher side without considering the applicant's limited income and failed to properly assess the documents and evidence presented, ultimately arriving at an unjust and baseless conclusion. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the 5 statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, 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 present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti