1 2025:CGHC:38896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 26 of 2023 Yashvant Sahu S/o Ganeshram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Sonpuri, Tahsil/thana And District - Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Dagesh Sahu S/o Yashwant Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Guardian Mother Sarita Sahu W/o Yashwant Sahu, R/o Village Sonpuri, Tahsil/thana And District - Kawardha (Kabeerdham) At Present R/o Village - Bhedni, Tahsil - Berla, Chauki - Devarbija, Thana/district - Bemetara (C.G.) 2. Sarita Sahu W/o Yashvant Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sonpuri, Tahsil/thana And District - Kawardha (Kabeerdham) At Present R/o Village - Bhedni, Tahsil - Berla, Chauki - Devarbija, Thana/district - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.06 10:48:26 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by the non-applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 2 are husband and wife, and it is an admitted position in the case that the marriage between the parties took place on 07.05.2019, as per the customs prevailing in their community. As per the averments made in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent, and after the marriage, the applicant started harassing her, physically assaulted the respondent No. 2, and demanded dowry. Consequently, she began residing with her parents. It is further averred that due to the harassment by the applicant, the respondent No. 2 started residing with her parents, and after some time, when the applicant failed to take care of her and did not provide any financial support for her maintenance, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.06.2022, claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 4. The case was fixed for counseling before the Family Court, and thereafter, the learned Family Court awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 4,000/-) per month as maintenance in favor of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order of maintenance of a total amount of Rs. 6,000/- 3 per month in favor of the respondents, despite the fact that the respondents failed to prove valid reasons for residing separately. Therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. The maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is against the settled principles of law and contrary to the evidence available on record. The respondent No. 2 and her witnesses failed to produce legal evidence before the trial court to establish that the applicant refused to maintain her. On the contrary, she herself was not willing to reside with the applicant and left his house voluntarily to reside at her parental home (Mayka). He also submits that the applicant is willing to reside with the respondents (his wife and son) and live together as a family. Learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and passed the impugned order without considering the relevant documents. The order was passed without any proof of the applicant’s income, who is only 23 years old and working as a laborer. The impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law as laid down by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in a series of judgments, including Rajneesh v. Neha and Another, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents 4 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek