1 2025:CGHC:41443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 36 of 2025 Janaklal Sahu S/o Sukhpal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Near Durga Mandir 176/4, Bacheli, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sheela Sahu W/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Bengali Camp Labourhotment Ward No. 10, House No. 260 Bacheli, Tahsil- Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 2. Ku. Himanshi Sahu D/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Bengali Camp Labourhotment Ward No. 10, House No.260 Bacheli, Tahsil- Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 3. Vijay Sahu S/o Janaklal Sahu Aged About 13 Years R/o Bengali Camp Labourhotment Ward No. 10, House No.260 Bacheli, Tahsil- Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2024, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, before the learned Family Court. In the said application, it was stated that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife, and respondents No. 2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the applicant. It was further alleged that the applicant had ousted the respondents, due to which they are living separately, and that they have no source of income. The respondent No. 1 claimed to be a housewife, while respondents No. 2 and 3, being children, are also without any source of income. Since the applicant has failed to maintain them, they filed the present application for maintenance. 4. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared and filed his reply, wherein he denied all the allegations. He submitted that he had never ousted the respondents from his house; rather, respondent No. 1 herself left the matrimonial home. The applicant had made several efforts to bring her back, but she refused to reside with him. It was further contended that respondent No. 1 is living separately without any reasonable cause. The applicant also stated that he is maintaining the respondents and providing money to respondent No. 1 for the studies and upkeep of respondents No. 2 and 3. He further contended that respondent No. 1 is a well-educated lady and is working as the President of the Mahila Cell of the Sahu Society, Bacheli. Therefore, as she is living separately on her own without sufficient cause, the 3 respondents are not entitled to claim any maintenance. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2024, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month to the respondents their maintenance, with effect from the date of application i.e., 01.08.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court committed a grave error of law in allowing maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month in favour of the respondents without calling for affidavits from the parties regarding their respective income and expenditure. He submits that learned Family Court erred in directing the applicant to pay Rs. 18,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of application, i.e., 01.08.2023. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had neither subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty nor ousted her from the matrimonial home. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is living separately without any reasonable cause. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 specifically admitted that the applicant had purchased a house at Bacheli in which she is presently residing. She further admitted that her daughter is pursuing B.A. studies and her son is studying in Class IX, and that their study expenses and other requirements are being borne by the applicant. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted the respondent No. 1, but that she herself left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and is residing in the house purchased by the applicant. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance or interim 4 maintenance, and the application ought to have been dismissed. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had even purchased a shop/ice-cream parlour in the name of respondent No. 1. He also submits that in paragraph 23 of her evidence, respondent No. 1 specifically admitted that the applicant’s father is about 85 years old and dependent upon the applicant. She further admitted that she has not been applying vermilion on her forehead since June 2023. She also admitted that a legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights was issued to her, to which she replied stating that she is not willing to live with the applicant. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made several efforts to bring back respondent No. 1 to the matrimonial home, but she refused to live with him. Learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence produced before it and arrived at a baseless and unjust conclusion. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. From perusal of the order of the concerned Family Court, it transpires that the Family Court held that the applicant herein, despite having sufficient means, neglected to maintain the respondents. Therefore, the application under Section 125 CrPC was partly allowed. The respondent, Janaklal Sahu, was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- each per month to applicant No. 2 (daughter) and applicant No. 3 (son), totaling Rs. 18,000/- per month, effective from 01.08.2023, to be paid by the 10th day of each month through cash, money order, bank draft, or direct bank deposit. 5 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil