1 2025:CGHC:29582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 536 of 2017 Sukul Ram Sahu S/o Shivnarayan, Aged About 31 Years Caste Teli, Occupation Cultivator And Business, R/o Village Sonpur (Barpara), Police Station Surajpur, Chowki- Basdei, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sarita Sahu W/o Sukul Ram Sahu, Aged About 25 Years D/o Gulabchandra Sahu, Caste Teli, R/o Village Sonpur (Barpara), Police Chowki- Basdei, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh At Present C/o Gulabchandra Sahu, R/o Village Tolga, Police Chowki Bachrapondi, Police Station Khadgawan, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 2. Sagar Sahu S/o Sukul Ram Sahu, Aged About 4 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Sarita Sahu, R/o Village Sonpur (Barpara), Police Chowki- Basdei, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh At Present C/o Gulabchandra Sahu, R/o Village Tolga, Police Chowki Bachrapondi, Police Station Khadgawan, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : None. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.03 11:14:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2017 and further be pleased to cancel the maintenance order dated 15.10.2001, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, seeking grant of maintenance, alleging therein that after the marriage, the behaviour of the applicant towards respondent No. 1 was good for about two years, and thereafter, the applicant subjected her to cruelty on account of demand for dowry and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home. 5. In the above proceedings, without proper service of notice, the 3 learned Family Court passed an ex-parte order on 28.10.2014, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondents. 6. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, stating therein that the applicant was running a kirana shop and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. 7. Vide impugned order dated 23.03.2017, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2017 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, it is liable to be set aside/quashed. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is living separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has no agricultural land and is not running any kirana shop. The applicant is working as a labourer and is hardly able to maintain himself and his old and infirm parents. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the earlier maintenance order was passed ex-parte, without hearing the applicant. The learned Family Court erred in enhancing the maintenance amount, particularly when the applicant is a labourer and has no permanent source of income. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made his best efforts to bring back respondent No. 1, but she was not willing to live with him. He 4 also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is a healthy woman and is capable of maintaining herself. The enhanced maintenance amount awarded by the impugned order is excessive considering the low income of the applicant, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek