1 2025:CGHC:41310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 608 of 2024 Doman Sahu S/o Narayan Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ira, Police Station Somni, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sangeeta Sahu W/o Doman Sahu And D/o Surit Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Nimora, Ranwabhata, Police Station Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.800/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 11.05.2014 at village Ranwabhata, District Raipur (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs, and they lived together as husband and wife. She alleged that after some time, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner and his family in connection with dowry demands, was beaten, and was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home, after which she began residing with her parents. She further claimed that the petitioner had an extramarital relationship, never maintained her, and that she had no independent source of income, whereas he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month from a mobile shop and Rs.10,000/- per month from nine acres of agricultural land. Upon notice, the petitioner denied these allegations, except for the admitted facts, and stated that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason despite his efforts to bring her back, and that he and his family never demanded dowry or committed cruelty. He claimed to be a labourer with no fixed monthly income and no agricultural land. Both parties examined their witnesses, and after hearing arguments, the Family Court, vide order dated 09.04.2024, partly allowed the 3 application, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in allowing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as the respondent/wife has an independent source of income and is capable of maintaining herself, a fact proved by the petitioner. During counseling at the Mahila Thana, she refused to live with the petitioner without valid reason, dis-entitling her to maintenance. She failed to prove allegations of dowry demand or cruelty, while the petitioner, having no agricultural land and working as a labourer in a mobile shop, has limited income. The Court wrongly held that she is living separately with sufficient cause, ignoring ample evidence to the contrary; thus, her claim ought to have been dismissed entirely. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 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 applicant to pay 4 Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the applicant (husband) had treated the respondent (wife) with cruelty, therfore she had sufficient reason to live separately from him. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent is unable to maintain herself and is living separately from the applicant for sufficient reasons. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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