1 2025:CGHC:34088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 59 of 2022 Churaman Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years Constable In Police Department, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Permanent R/o. Village Pandari Pathara, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At Present R/o. Salhewara, Tahsil Chhuriya, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Hemlata Sahu W/o Churaman Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village Pandari Pathara, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant/Husband : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/Wife : Mr. Anuj Pandey, Advocate. Along with CRR No. 239 of 2022 Hemlata Sahu W/o Shri Churaman Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Pandripathra, Tahsil Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus Churaman Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Constable Chhattisgarh Police Department, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Aged About 40 Years, Permanent R/o Village Pandri Pathra, Tahsil Chhuriya , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Police Station Salhewara, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant/Wife : Mr. Anuj Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/Husband : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. These Criminal Revisions are being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 40/2014, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the wife for grant of maintenance, and ordered the husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the wife (Hemlata Sahu) had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance from the husband (Churaman Sahu). It was pleaded inter-alia in her application that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 27.04.2012, and after the marriage, she came to know that her husband is already married and at the time of marriage, she was informed that her husband is bachelor and is constable. Out of the first marriage the husband has a child. To save the marriage, she agreed with reside with her husband. Thereafter, her husband used to assault her in questioned the character of the wife. Her husband is working in the Police department and is earning Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and thus she claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 3. The husband (Churaman Sahu) has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. After perusing the documents and hearing the submissions of the parties, and the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the wife and granted maintenance of a meager amount Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance. Hence, these revisions. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the husband (Churaman Sahu) submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court tried the application under Section 125 of CrPC and the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act together and passed the order on the same date i.e. 11.10.2021, wherein in the divorce suit, the husband was granted divorce on the ground that the wife had relation with other person which amount to cruelty, but on the other hand, the learned Family Court has granted maintenance by the impugned order, which is illegal. The fact of divorce is evident from the order dated 11.10.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.134-A/2013, which is filed as Annexure A/2 with the present revision. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife (Hemlata Sahu) opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the statement of the husband, whereby he has clearly admitted that he works as a constable in the Police department and earns Rs. 43000/- per month, but without considering the said fact the learned Family Court has granted a meager amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife, hence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 4 learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revisions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar