1 2025:CGHC:44611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 50 of 2024 Sant Ram Sahu S/o Shri Chainuram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Bajar Chowk, Ward No. 3, Urla, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rekha Sahu W/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Tecahers Colony, Tilda Newra, Thana Tilda Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Aarti Sahu, D/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Tecahers Colony, Tilda Newra, Thana Tilda Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Khileshwari Sahu, D/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Tecahers Colony, Tilda Newra, Thana Tilda Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.03 11:00:35 +0530 2 set-aside and quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, M.J.C. No. 833/2019. 2.Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 got married in the year 1999 as per Hindu traditions and customs. From their wedlock, two daughters were born, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. The applicant and respondent No. 1 obtained a customary divorce and separation before the Jheriya Sahu Community on 12.11.2000. Since then, they have been living separately and have not cohabited as husband and wife. After the said customary divorce, the applicant married one Mamta Sahu as per the Chudi custom of marriage and presently resides with her and their two children. After 19 years of customary divorce and living separately, the respondents filed an application seeking maintenance from the applicant without any cause, reason, or justification for such demand. Moreover, both daughters, i.e., respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, have attained majority, and one of them is married. Yet, the applicant has been harassed by such a belated and unjustified claim for maintenance. 4. Although the applicant had filed his reply to the application, due to ill health he could not attend the hearing, and consequently, an ex-parte order was passed against him by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in MJC No. 833/2019. 5. Learned Court has categorically held the income of the applicant to be Rs. 5,000/-, it has nonetheless awarded Rs. 3,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, thereby directing the 3 applicant to pay a total of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has grossly erred in not considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case before passing the impugned order dated 27.10.2021. Learned Family Court wrongly appreciated the material placed before it and has erred in the correct application of law. The provisions under Section 125 CrPC provide a speedy remedy to women, children, and destitute parents in distress, with the object of preventing destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support to maintain those unable to maintain themselves but having a moral claim for such support. However, the learned Family Court has failed to assess the capacity of the applicant to provide such support and has also failed to investigate the necessity of granting such support to the respondents, thereby frustrating the very purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the award exceeds the actual earning of the applicant. Moreover, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are majors, and one of them is married, which makes the claim unjustified. The unexplained delay of 19 years further renders the claim untenable, as the respondents were capable of maintaining themselves during this long period and have suddenly raised a demand for support without showing sufficient cause. The learned Court has failed to examine the necessity and justification for such support before passing the impugned order. He also submits that the ex-parte order has imposed an unreasonable liability upon the applicant, far exceeding his earning capacity, thereby leaving him unable to sustain even himself. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicantand perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 4 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek