1 2025:CGHC:27409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 745 of 2018 Bhanupratap Sahu S/o Shri Ghandul Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Teka, P. S. Rajim, At Present House Of Devram, Near, Rajim Mandi Gate, Rajim District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Juli @ Mamta Sahu W/o Bhanupratap Sahu Aged About 26 Years D/o Bhukhau Ram Sahu, R/o Village Parsada, P. S. Gobara- Navapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Dalima Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Juli @ Mamta Sahu, Wife Of Shi Bhanupratap Sahu, R/o Village Parsada, P. S. Gobara-Navapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Mona Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Juli @ Mamta Sahu, Wife Of Shi Bhanupratap Sahu, R/o Village Parsada, P. S. Gobara-Navapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Ganga Sahu Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Juli @ Mamta Sahu, Wife Of Shi Bhanupratap Sahu, R/o Village Parsada, P. S. Gobara-Navapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None for the respondent. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.281/2014, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/-(each) per month to respondent Nos.3 & 4 towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance before the Family Court Raipur and in the application, it was alleged that respondent No.1 was married with applicant in accordance with Hindu Custom on 03-04-2007 at Raipur and thereafter the applicant and respondent No.1 started to lead conjugal life together and from their wedlock, the respondents No.2 to 4 were born and since presently upbringing of respondents are being done at the parental home of respondent No.1 and since 3 immediately after the marriage the applicant and his parents had started to harass and beat and assault the respondent No.1 on the point of insufficient dowry and asked the respondent No.1 to bring ornament, three lakhs cash for Car and after the delivery first daughter, the applicant and family member started that they want son and therefore started the beat and assault and when second daughter was born, they started to physically and mentally tortured and after the born of third daughter, she was turned out from matrimonial home and thereafter she was compelled to live parental home along with daughter and since the respondent No.1 has no other means of income and since as alleged by the respondent No.1 that the applicant has illegal relation with so- many ladies and has also married one Gunja of Village Beltukari and said lady has started to live from Feb.2014 and since after she was turned out in Jan.2014, where the applicant had told her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs just immediate for the purposes of four wheeler, she came to her parental home and thereafter at the intervention and suggestion of parents of respondent No.1, the applicant had as alleged kept her one rented house at Rajim and on 14-02-2014 without the knowledge of non-applicant No.1, the applicant had taken, which was worth Rs.2 lakhs, on the basis of which, the report was lodged and also Mahila Thana Raipur on 09-03-2014 and on the basis of that report, the case was registered against the applicant and his family member under Section 498-A and 34 of IPC at P.S. Rajim. 4 5. Since the applicant as alleged has retail and whole sale business from where he earns of Rs.4000/- to 5,000/- per day and he also does business of beauty parlor from where he earns of Rs.15,000/- per month. The said application was replied by the applicant and denied all the contents of the application of the respondent No.1 and stated in the reply specifically that the respondent No.1 herself earns and has a swing shop from where she earns Rs.20,000/- per month and since in the reply the applicant made very clear that the non-applicant No.1 on their own instance had left the matrimonial home and had been living along with their daughters and since the allegation made against him regarding the cruelty has been exercised and demand of dowry has been denied and also denied that he had turned out the respondent No.1 from matrimonial home. After hearing both the parties, learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents. Hence, the criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in believing the evidence presented by the respondent and their witnesses. Instead, it should have held that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was living with her parents at Village Parsada. By failing to do so, the Family Court committed an illegality in granting maintenance to the respondent. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 has a sufficient source of income, running a swing shop in Raipur that earns her 5 Rs.20,000 per month. Given her financial capacity, she can sustain herself and her daughters. Therefore, the maintenance order dated June 1, 2018, should be quashed. He also submits that the Family Court failed to consider the applicant's reply and evidence, and the non-applicants couldn't establish their claim for maintenance. Given these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal and improper. Therefore, it should be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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 pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- (each) per month to respondent No.3 & 4 towards maintenance observing that respondent sought maintenance for her first daughter, Kumari Dilima (5 years old), arrayed herein as respondent No. 2. However, during cross-examination, the respondent herself admitted that her elder daughter is currently living with the applicant and his family members. Since the daughter is not living separately from the applicant, maintenance cannot be granted to her, therefore, the Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance for her. Further, considering the social and economic circumstances of both parties, the Family Court has 6 granted maintenance as aforementioned to respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil