1 2025:CGHC:31692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 372 of 2024 Kashiram Sahu S/o Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Dhanseer, P.S. And Tahsil Bhilaigarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kartikbai Sahu W/o Kashiram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bamnhidih, Thana And Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anvi Sahu D/o Kashiram Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Therough Natural Guardian Mother Kartik Bai Sahu, R/o Village Bamnhidih, Thana & Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the order dated 08.12.23 passed by Family RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court, Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 49/2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 49/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that respondent No.1 was married to the applicant on 05.04.2017 as per Hindu rites, and a child (respondent No.2) was born from the wedlock. It was alleged that the applicant subjected respondent No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, forcing her to live separately with her parents. The applicant filed a reply before the Family Court, denying all allegations and contending that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home as she was unwilling to live with the applicant’s parents. After considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 08.12.2023, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded monthly maintenance of ₹2,000 to respondent No.1 and ₹500 to respondent No.2. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The learned Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 had previously lodged an FIR against the applicant under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC on 01.09.2020, which reflects strained relations. Furthermore, respondent No.1 voluntarily left the applicant’s house without any justifiable reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant is a poor, rustic villager earning his 3 livelihood through daily wage labour and has no stable source of income. Despite this, the learned Court ignored the applicant’s evidence and wrongly awarded maintenance. Additionally, the applicant is solely responsible for the care of his aged parents, and the maintenance amount granted is excessive under the given circumstances. A social meeting was also held on 13.10.2019 at Village Khoksa, wherein both parties agreed upon the return of ornaments and a compensation amount of ₹70,000/- towards divorce proceedings. Since then, they have been living separately, and the applicant contends that he is not liable to pay further maintenance. Hence, the order of the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court dated 08.12.2023 is just, fair, and based on a proper appreciation of the facts and material available on record. The Family Court rightly took into account the responsibilities of the applicant towards his legally wedded wife and 4 minor child, both of whom are entitled to be maintained by him under the law. The allegations of physical and mental cruelty, coupled with the fact that respondent No.1 was compelled to reside separately, were duly considered, and in the absence of any evidence to show that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason, the Court correctly awarded reasonable maintenance. Furthermore, the quantum of ₹2,000 per month for respondent No.1 and ₹500 per month for respondent No.2 is modest and proportionate, reflecting the applicant’s stated financial condition. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan