1 2025:CGHC:33868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 676 of 2022 1. Smt. Janki Sahu W/o Rupesh Sahu Aged About 26 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Khamharmunda, Present Address Village - Sirri, Thana And Tehsil - Bagbahara, Distt. - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Rahul Sahu S/o Rupesh Sahu Aged About 11 months Caste Teli , Through Her Mother Janki Sahu , R/o Village Khamharmunda, Present Address Village - Sirri, Thana And Tehsil - Bagbahara, Distt. - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Rupesh Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 30 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Khamharmunda, Thana Khalari, Tehsil And Distt. - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 12:14:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and may further be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 passed by Judge of Family Court, Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund, (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 46/2020 (ANNEXURE A/1) whereby the learned court has party allowed the maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant and pass an order to non applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs 5000/- to applicant no.1 and Rs 2000/- to applicant no.2 per month, in the interest and also in the ends of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2018 as per their social norms and traditions. From their wedlock, one son (applicant No. 2) was born. Applicant No. 1 and the respondent lived together happily for 2–3 months, but thereafter, the respondent started abusing the applicant No. 01 for dowry and also started beating her. One day, the respondent forcibly ousted applicant No. 1 from his house and kept applicant No. 2 with himself. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 had to take shelter at her parental home and lodged a report at the concerned police station regarding the incident. Pursuant to this, the respondent handed over the custody of applicant No. 2 to applicant No. 1. However, the respondent continued to call applicant No. 1 on the phone and threatened to kill her if she ever returned to his house. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 made various 3 attempts to resume cohabitation, but the respondent clearly denied the same. Consequently, applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance on 04.12.2020, praying for interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 2,000/- for applicant No. 2, as the respondent was earning Rs. 12,000– 15,000/- per month by working in a poultry business. 4. The respondent filed a reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., denying all the allegations made by applicant No. 1. 5. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 filed an application for interim maintenance. The learned Family Court allowed the application filed by applicant No. 1 but without considering the circumstances faced by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to Applicant No. 2. 6. Thereafter, evidence was recorded by the learned Family Court. Both applicant No. 1 and the respondent were permitted to examine two witnesses each. 7. The learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicant No. 1, rejecting the claim of maintenance for applicant No. 1 but awarding maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month to applicant No. 2, without considering the circumstances faced by the applicant and erroneously holding that the applicant No. 01 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 4 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aide. He submits that the learned Court completely overlooked the fact that the respondent used abusive language to humiliate the applicant No. 01 in front of other persons and tortured her by demanding money, due to which applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 are residing separately from the respondent. The applicant does not have any source of income, and the condition of the applicant is critical as she has lost vision in both eyes. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made various attempts to resume cohabitation, but the respondent clearly refused. Even today, the applicant is willing to live with respondent. No affidavit of assets and liabilities was filed by either party before the Family Court, and the Family Court adjudicated the matter without ascertaining the assets and liabilities of the parties. Hence, the learned Family Court has committed an error. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to comply with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Hon’ble Court framed guidelines covering overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of interim maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and the enforcement of maintenance orders. It is pertinent to mention that, in furtherance of this judgment, the Hon’ble High Court also issued endorsements to subordinate Courts to comply 5 with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 600/- to applicant No. 2, whereas the application for grant of maintenance of applicant No. 1 was rejected, observing that applicant No. 1 is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek