1 2025:CGHC:48594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 275 of 2021 Tekram Sahu S/o Jagannath Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Baghul, Thana / Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ramkumari W/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Baghul, Thana / Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, At Present R/o Village Harmudi, Thana Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Radhika D/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Ramkumari W/o Tekram Sahu, R/o Village Baghul, Thana / Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, At Present R/o Village Harmudi, Thana Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lalima D/o Tekram Sahu, Aged About 2 Year And 6 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Ramkumari W/o Tekram Sahu, R/o Village - Baghul, Thana / Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, At Present R/o Village Harmudi, Thana Nawagarh, District Bemetarta Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned Family Court, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C. No.148/2020, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and 3 each, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and it is an admitted position in the case that their marriage took place in the year 2013 according to the customs prevailing in the community. As per the averments made in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., after the birth of their children, the applicant allegedly began harassing and physically assaulting the respondent, eventually forcing her to leave the marital home and reside with her parents at Harmudi, Bemetara. It is further averred that due to such harassment, the non-applicant continued to live with her parents, and when the applicant failed to provide any maintenance for her or the children, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 06.12.2020, claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The matter was fixed for counseling before the Family Court, following which the learned Family Court awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance in 3 favor of the respondents. The applicant produced both oral and documentary evidence to support his case and to establish that he was willing to live together with the family, hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favor of the respondents, despite their failure to prove any valid reason for residing separately, and therefore, they are not entitled to any maintenance. The order passed by the Family Court is contrary to settled principles of law and the evidence on record, as the respondent and her witnesses failed to produce legal evidence establishing that the applicant refused to keep her, particularly when she herself was unwilling to reside with the applicant and left his house to reside at her parental home of her own volition. Further, the learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and passed the impugned order without considering relevant documents or any proof of income of the applicant, who is a 31-year-old person. The impugned order is therefore contrary to settled principles of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and 3 each, towards maintenance, observing the the evidence of both parties, it was established that the respondent No.1 (wife) left the marital home due to harassment and physical abuse by the applicant (husband) and his mother, which constitutes sufficient reason for her separate residence. Furthermore, the applicant is found to be a person with adequate means, owning agricultural land and running businesses, while the respondent No.1 and her children respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no independent income. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil