1 2025:CGHC:41452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 691 of 2023 Tarun Sahu (Tanu) S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Santoshi Sahu D/o Late Bahorik Sahu Aged About 23 Years W/o Tarun Sahu (Tanu) R/o Village Mahli, P.S. Kunda, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District – kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.104/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.2019 as per Hindu customs at Village Mahli, Police Station Kunda, District Kawardha. According to the application, after marriage, the applicant used to tell the respondent that she was not beautiful, too thin, dark-skinned, that he felt disgusted to see her, and that he did not want to live with her. He abused her in filthy language, threatened to drive her out of the house, and on several occasions beat her and left her at her parental home. On each such occasion, her father sent her back to her matrimonial home. However, on 05.12.2019, the applicant assured her that he would come in the evening to take her back, but left her at her parental home and never returned. It has been about one and a half years, and he has not come to take her back. The applicant also suspects her character. Whenever contacted, he abuses and threatens the respondent, saying that she can live with him only if she brings money by selling the land and house from her parental side. The respondent is 21 years old, not well educated, and does not do any work. Her father has passed away. She has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the applicant runs a Britannia agency, from which he earns about Rs.3,00,000 annually. He also owns an auto, which is run by a driver, generating about Rs.20,000 per month. In addition, he owns a car. Therefore, the applicant prayed for grant of maintenance allowance from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court 3 after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 16-02-2023 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, suffers from procedural irregularities, and is vitiated by perversity, and therefore it is liable to be set aside or reduced. The learned Family Court has wrongly assessed and interpreted the income of the applicant. It has further ignored the material fact that the applicant had gone to take the respondent back from her parental house and is still ready and willing to keep her with him. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.2019 as per Hindu customs at Village Mahli, Police Station Kunda, District Kawardha. Furthermore, the respondent has admitted that, on the basis of the applicant’s complaint, a case under Sections 498 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against him and his family members, which is still pending. From the above evaluation of evidence, it is 4 clear that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and justified reasons. Moreover, although the respondent wife has some limited sources of income, she is entitled to live according to the status and standard of her husband. The applicant husband is a person of sufficient means, and his claim of being unemployed and without income was not found reliable. Considering the wife’s needs, her lack of substantial independent income, and the husband’s financial capacity, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent / wife is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side as per social and economical status of both the parties. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil