1 2025:CGHC:27421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 753 of 2025 1. Smt. Neetu Sahu W/o Shri Chaman Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Parsuli, Post - Narra, Police Chowki - Tuhalu, Tahsil - Komakhan And District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Master Aman Sahu S/o Shri Chaman Lal Sahu Aged About 10 Years Being Minor Represented By Petitioner No. 1 Her Mother Smt. Neetu Sahu, R/o Village - Parsuli, Post - Narra, Police Chowki - Tuhalu, Tahsil - Komakhan And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Chaman Lal Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post - Ganjar, Ward No. - 15, Gandhi Chowk, Tahsil Baghbahara and District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. The applicant No.1/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.88/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:32:18 +0530 2 regard to the applicant No.2/son and granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and rejected the application with regard to applicant No. 1/wife. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant/wife was married with respondent on 27/04/2008 as per Hindu Customary rights and out of their wedlock one son named Aman Sahu respondent No.02 was born 03/04/2013. The respondent was by profession Ayurvedic-Doctor doing private-practice, beside this having agriculture-land given on rent (regha), having Joint-grossary-shop- whole-sale-shop and also engaged in buying-selling- forest produce and also having Bollero-Pickup Van for running on rent out of these sources respondent used to earn Rs.7 Lakhs per month therefore, petitioners/applicants seeks a maintenance amount Rs.50,000/- per month as grant of maintenance award. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant No.1/wife submits that the applicant No.1 legally wedded wife, had her maintenance allowance rejected, while the minor son was awarded only ₹4,000/-. Despite proving her marriage and the son's birth out of wedlock, the Family Court rejected her application. The respondent/husband had allegedly forced her out of the matrimonial home, threatening her and leaving her to live with their son in a difficult situation. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicants filed this Criminal Revision to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 for awarding the maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 3 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that applicant No.1/wife has not made any report in the police station regarding the harassment mentioned in her application, nor has she told to make it before any competent authority. Despite living in marriage for sixteen years and using mobile etc. for ten years, applicant No.1 has not made any complaint in any police station or outpost, rather applicant No. 1 herself has refused to go with the respondent/husband. In such a situation, it cannot be proved that applicant No.1 has any sufficient basis to live separately from the respondent. Further, the son Aman Sahu, who is the son of the applicant No.1 and the respondent, lives with the applicant No.1 and it is the moral and familial responsibility of the respondent to take care of him, due to which the respondent will be responsible to pay the maintenance amount for the said minor child. The respondent has stated that he runs a business, which makes it clear that the respondent is a person with sufficient means to maintain his child. Therefore, the application of the applicant No.1/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is partially rejected and the application of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is partially accepted in respect of her son applicant No.2 - Aman Sahu, and it is ordered that the respondent will pay Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance to the minor son Aman Sahu. 6. 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti