1 2025:CGHC:41451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 504 of 2024 1 - Smt. Neha Sahu W/o. Shri Tejram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu, R/o Village Bodra, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vedant Sahu S/o. Shri Tejram Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neha Sahu R/o Village Bodra, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Vedika Sahu D/o Shri Tejram Sahu, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natrual Guardian Mother Smt. Neha Sahu R/o Village Bodra, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Tejram Sahu S/o Shir Hiraman Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Leela Chowk, North -West Kosmarra, Ward No. 7, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.05/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 with the respondent was solemnized on 20.04.2012 as per the prevailing customs of the community at District Dhamtari, and from the said wedlock two children namely Vedant and Vedika were born, who are presently aged about 8 and 6 years and residing with applicant No. 1 while pursuing their education. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2022 claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, stating therein that after six months of marriage, due to illness, applicant No. 1 was sent by her father-in-law to her parental home at Bodra where she took treatment and the husband also resided with her during that period and the children were born there; thereafter, they lived in a rented premises at Dhamtari where the respondent started torturing and beating her 3 after consuming liquor, showing pornographic pictures through mobile and forcing unnatural intercourse, due to which applicant No. 1 suffered pain and agony and ultimately went to her parental home, and though several community meetings were called, there was no change in the conduct of the respondent. 3. It is further averred that due to excessive consumption of liquor the respondent fell ill, his treatment was done at Raipur, and thereafter he and his family members accused the Applicant of witchcraft (Tonhi) and ousted her, and since last three years she has been residing separately without being provided any maintenance or school fee for the children. The respondent, who works as an electrician and also in a cement shop at Bhakhara, earns about Rs. 8,000/- per month and possesses 2.5 acres of agricultural land yielding an annual income of Rs. 4 lakhs, yet has failed to provide maintenance, which compelled the Applicants to claim Rs. 15,000/- per month. After service of notice, the respondent appeared before the Family Court and filed his written statement denying the allegations, stating instead that the Applicant quarreled with neighbors, refused to stay at the matrimonial home, insisted on residing in her maternal village, neglected household duties on the pretext of illness, and voluntarily deserted him while staying at her parental home along with the children. He further pleaded that he is the only son, has the responsibility of maintaining his parents and two unmarried sisters, and despite his efforts to bring her back, she refused to 4 live with him, hence prayed for dismissal of the application. The matter was referred for counseling but the same failed; thereafter, evidence of both parties was recorded, and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court held that applicant No. 1 was residing separately without sufficient cause, dismissed her application, and awarded only Rs. 1,500/- each to applicants No. 2 and 3 towards maintenance, which is wholly inadequate to meet even their food and educational expenses. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure A-1), the applicants have preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding a meager amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- each only in favor of applicants No. 2 and 3 while dismissing the claim of applicant No. 1 on the erroneous finding that she is residing separately without sufficient cause, ignoring that mere non-lodging of FIR cannot disentitle her from maintenance as held in Rajnesh vs. Neha. The Court failed to appreciate the proved allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment supported by evidence and also disregarded Exhibits P-1 to P-18 relating to the children’s education expenses, thereby granting an amount wholly insufficient even to meet food and school fees. Further, it overlooked Exhibits P-19 and P-20 showing applicant No. 1’s ongoing medical treatment and Exhibits P-21 and P-22 proving agricultural land in the family’s possession, despite the respondent being financially capable as an electrician and 5 agriculturist. The findings that the applicant is residing separately without sufficient cause are perverse, as the evidence, including that of AW-2 Laxman Sahu, clearly established that she was ousted and has no independent source of income. The Court also failed to consider the binding guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC, and ignored the fact that the respondent, being healthy and gainfully employed, is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and children, who are entitled to live in the same standard as him. applicant No. 1, being a housewife under continuous treatment, along with two minor children wholly dependent on her parental family, are thus entitled to just and reasonable maintenance which has been wrongly denied by the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant 6 No.3, towards maintenance observing that the wife (applicant No. 1) failed to prove sufficient and reasonable cause for living separately from her husband, and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. However, since applicants No. 2 and 3 (minor children) are the son and daughter of the respondent, it is the father’s legal and moral duty to maintain them. Considering applicant’s income and social background, the Family Court concluded that the applicants No.2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil