1 2025:CGHC:30198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 663 of 2018 Heera Lal Sahu S/o Ghasiya @ Shriniwas Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Dafai No. 3 Bhalumada, Post Kotma Colliery Ward No. 10, P. S. Bhalumada, Tahsil And District Anuppur M. P., District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Gayatri @ Jyoti Sahu W/o Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Parsadih, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh At Present Santosh Kumar Sahu, Village And Post Amora, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Vedika Sahu D/o Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Gayatri @ Jyoti Sahu, ( Applicant No. 1), R/o Parsadih, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh At Present Santosh Kumar Sahu, Village And Post Amora, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.66/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and the applicant took place on April 22, 2015, as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, respondent No. 1 joined the applicant’s household. However, the applicant and his family members allegedly began harassing her, demanding a four-wheeler and ten tolas of gold as dowry, beating her, and locking her in a room without food. During her pregnancy, the abuse continued, and after the birth of respondent No. 2, the situation worsened, with taunts about having a daughter. Due to the escalating harassment, respondent No. 1's parents brought her back home on April 11, 2017. Attempts at reconciliation failed, and the applicant allegedly threatened her life and second marriage. The respondents claim that the applicant has spread malicious rumors about respondent No. 1's character. Given the applicant’s stable job with SECL, earning Rs. 50,000-60,000/- per month, and additional agricultural income of Rs. 3 lakhs per annum, the respondents seek maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month for respondent No. 1. thereafter, the applicant filed his reply 3 denying all the averments and claims claimed by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court's ex-parte order dated November 22, 2017, should be set aside as the husband claims he wasn't properly served notice due to collusion between the wife and the postman, further when the wife had filed a revision for the enhancement of the maintenance and the notice was sent from the High Court and there the applicant could come to know for the first time, regarding the decision of the case passed by the learned family Court Janjgir and therefore on account of which the ex-parte order passed against him on 22.11.2017 be ordered to be set-aside and the case be directed to remitted back to the learned family Court Janjgir Champa for providing to the proper opportunity to the applicant/husband to allow him to grant time for reply and to adduce evidence and since the allegation made against the applicant/husband are all false and since the applicant is not getting Rs.50000/-per month, but he is getting only Rs.26,702/- working as a general laborer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 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 pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that respondent No. 1, requested a monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the applicant. However, the respondents failed to prove that the applicant’s monthly income is three times more than Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month as monthly maintenance is not feasible. The Family Court further observed the economic and social status of both parties, as well as the current financial situation. Based on that, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil