1 2025:CGHC:36128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 92 of 2023 1 - Smt. Divya Sahu W/o Shri Jitendra Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o C/ o Bhajan Lal Sahu (Tailor), Lakholi, Ward- 35. Rajnandgoan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Prachi Sahu D/o Jitendra Sahu Aged About 3 Years Through The Guardian Mother Smt. Divya Sahu W/o Shri Jitendra Sahu, R/o C/o Bhajan Lal Sahu (Tailor), Lakholi, Ward- 35. Rajnandgoan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Jitendra Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nevarikala (Tekapar), Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.), Present Address - Netaji Subhash Nagar Ward, Near Kalibadi Mandir, Narayankunj, Nandani Road, Power House, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel for the non- applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased enhance the amount of maintenance for the applicant No.01 and No.02 awarded by the Judge, Family Court Rajnandgaon in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 85/2018 (Annexure A- 1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 17.01.2012 as per Hindu rites, and a son (applicant No. 2) was born on 21.01.2015. Soon after the marriage, the applicant no.1 was allegedly subjected to harassment and cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands and other domestic disputes. It is stated that the non-applicant’s family misrepresented themselves as vegetarians before marriage but later pressured the applicant no.1 to consume non-vegetarian food. Further, the non- applicant’s sister, who also resided in the same joint family, allegedly harassed the applicant. The non-applicant is engaged in the sand mining business under the name “Sai Enterprises,” along with his younger brother Vimal Sahu. On 03.04.2017, during a night when Vimal Sahu was away at the sand mine, the applicant allegedly witnessed the non-applicant exiting Vimal’s room, where Vimal’s wife was alone, which led to a confrontation. The non- applicant allegedly threatened the applicant no.1 with influence over 3 higher officials, physically assaulted her, and forced her to return to her maternal home due to ill health. Although a compromise was executed after the applicant’s complaint, assuring peaceful cohabitation, the harassment allegedly resumed shortly thereafter. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is addicted to alcohol and maintains illicit relations with his brother’s wife, due to which the applicant is unable to continue residing with him. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the financial capacity of the non-applicant, who is working as a contractor and earning more than Rs. 5 lakhs per month, and did not correctly assess his income while determining maintenance. The Court also erred in awarding only Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, a three-year-old child, and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 1, despite her being entirely dependent on the non-applicant and compelled to do a private job at a provision store merely to sustain herself and her daughter. The Court further failed to consider that the applicants are residing separately due to the misconduct and harassment of the non-applicant and his family members, and also overlooked that the non-applicant’s application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights had already been dismissed. The impugned order, therefore, does not reflect the true income of the non-applicant, is inadequate in light of the applicants’ needs, and is liable to be enhanced. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty, and alleged illicit relations raised by the applicant against the non-applicant, rightly concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate these claims. The Court noted contradictions in the applicant’s statements, lack of independent corroboration, and absence of credible proof regarding the alleged incidents. It further found that the applicant’s decision to reside separately was not adequately justified in light of the material on record. The Family Court also observed that the applicant had previously entered into a compromise and resumed cohabitation, which weakened the credibility of the subsequent allegations. Further the Court has rightly awarding Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, a three-year-old child, and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 1. Considering the overall circumstances, the Family Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction and passed the impugned order, which is proper, legal, and based on sound appreciation of evidence. 5 8. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan