1 2025:CGHC:34640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 364 of 2024 1 - Smt. Surekha Sahu W/o Jhalendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Sarphonga, Post- Bhatbhera, P.S.- Newra, Raipur, Tehsil- Tilda And District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Kumari Varya (Vanshi) Sahu D/o Jhalendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 1 Years 02 Months, R/o Village- Sarphonga, Post- Bhatbhera, P.S.- Newra, Raipur, Tehsil- Tilda And District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Jhalendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Surju Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post- Kodwa (Sasha), Tehsil - Pallari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31-01-2024 (Annexure A-1) and enhance the maintenance amount for the applicant no.1 & 2 as prayed in the application under KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 and non-applicant were married as per Hindu Customs and rituals and their marriage was solemnized on 28-04-2016 at Village Sarphonga, District Raipur (C.G.). It is stated that after the marriage, a girl child was born on 20- 07-2017 and she is residing with her mother i.e applicant No.1 and it is also been stated that after passing of 4 month of marriage the applicant No. 1 harassed by non-applicant and her mother in law and they used to taunt and insult the applicant No.1 everyday by saying that she had not brought sufficient jewelry for the wedding. After the marriage, the applicant has to do all the household work and hence many times she would get tired and sit at one place and the non- applicant and his mother would hold the hand of applicant No. 1 and lift her up and say how the sick girl has tied out shoulders which is bit difficult and on many occasion the non-applicant used to slap applicant on her cheek and would cause pain to her. She continued to bear it silently with time and kept tolerating the behavior of the non- applicant and his mother with the hope that there would be a change in their behavior but time passed and there were no changes in their behavior rather the harassment of the non-applicant and his mother kept increasing. It has also been stated that one day non-applicant and his mother started abusing since morning and when applicant No.1 refused to hear the abusing words then the non-applicant grabbed the hair of the applicant No.1 and also dragged her on the ground and threw her mobile on the floor due to which the mobile broke and it is also been pleaded that when the applicant No. 1 became pregnant, due to which the non-applicant became very angry 3 and his mother unanimously started pressurizing her to get an abortion for which the applicant No. 1 was not ready thereafter, the non-applicant brought abortion pills to terminate her pregnancy and tried to forcefully put the pill in applicant mouth and when she spit the pill out of her mouth, the non-applicant used to beat her with hands and fists and used obscene abuses. Due to the said act, the applicant No.1 life had become hell and the child was growing in the applicant No.1 womb and values of her parents she has been tolerating the troubles cause by the non-applicant. The non-applicant used to drink alcohol and after drinking alcohol he would forcefully have physical relations with applicant and under the influence of alcohol when the applicant would run away from the smell of alcohol the non-applicant would pour the alcohol on the applicant and it is also been pleaded that the non-applicant and his mother forcibly took the applicant No. 1 to hospital to get an abortion but they failed thereafter the non-applicant refused to keep the applicant No. 1 in his house as they cant arrange the medicine and delivery expenses of the applicant No. 1 therefore they dropped the applicant No. 1 to her maternal house when the applicant No. 1 was pregnant for 4 months. After that the applicant No. 1 gave birth to baby child at government hospital at Tilda but the non-applicant did not come to see his daughter nor did he came to take her to his house even the father of the applicant No. 2 himself came to drop her in non-applicant house where they refused to keep the applicant No. 1 and also putted a condition that she would never keep a mobile phone and also told her not talk to her maternal family members after which applicant forced to come back to non-applicant house. 4 The applicant No.1 made many efforts to maintain her married life with the non-applicant but it had no effects on the part of non- applicant even father of the applicant No.1 given an application to the sahu samaj for conducting a meeting but the non-applicant not attend the meeting thereafter, she lodged complaint at mahila thana Raipur and after investigation by mahila thana Raipur an offence under section 498-A was registered against the non-applicant and his mother. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is financially well off and he is working on the post if supervisor in City Centre Mall, Raipur where he receives Rs 32,000/- per month and apart from this the non-applicant has seven and half acres of agriculture land in village kodwa in which he earns Rs 3,00,000/- per annum from the said land and in this way the non-applicant earns Rs 50,000/-. Due to lack of financial support, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance of Rs. 18,000/-per month from the non-applicant. 3. The Non-applicant has filed his reply and denied all allegation made by the applicant No.1 and stated that the applicant No.1 was not subjected to cruelty, there was no demand of dowry, even she has deserted him without any reasonable cause. 4. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/- per 5 month to the applicant No.2 till he became major (total Rs. 6000/-). Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant No. 1 is an unemployed women who is residing with her daughter and at present she has no income source as the price hike of all the goods are high in this century it's very difficult for applicant No. 1 to fulfill all the requirement in such a small amount and she is unable to maintain herself. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the fact that the applicant No.1 has filed the report before the police station women cell, Raipur under Section 498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The non-applicant and his family members are on bail, which shows that the cruelty has been constituted by the act of non applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed error by not properly appreciating the evidence of applicant No.1 as she clearly stated all the things happened with her. The non-applicant is agriculturist, also carrying salary from his job which mean he can pay the expenses to the applicants. The non- applicant belongs to financially strong family, who receives a gross annual income 3 Lakh from agriculture and also receive monthly salary form the job. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that while passing the said order, the learned Family Court considering the prevailing inflation rate and the non-applicant’s responsibility towards his wife and child 6 and upon evaluating the overall circumstances, the learned Family Court was partly allowed the application filed by the applicants and directed the non-applicant to pay a monthly maintenance amount of ₹4000/- to the applicant No.1/wife and ₹2000/- to the applicant No.2/daughter till majority (Total 6000/-). It appears that the learned Family Court, concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal