1 2025:CGHC:25100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 112 of 2018 1. Smt. Seema @ Tejaswini Sahu W/o Rajesh Kumar Aged About 43 Years Presently R/o Link Road in Front of Metro Cinema, Janjgir Police Station Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2. Raja @ Aditya S/o Rajesh Sahu Aged About 12 Years Through Its Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seema @ Tejaswini Sahu, Presently R/o Link Road In Front of Metro Cinema, Janjgir Police Station Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Haridas Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Shardha Niwas, Sindhya Nagar East Durg P. O. S. A. F. Line, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Jai Balaji Industrial Limited, Unit-1, G/1, Mangalpur Industrial Complex, Bakhtar Nagar, Raniganj ( West Bengal ), West Bengal ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of non-applicant when the case is called out of hearing. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 19:05:39 +0530 2 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 389/16, whereby the Learned Family Court partially allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and awarded Rs. 3000/- towards maintenance for applicant No. 2. Conversely, the application for maintenance filed by applicant No. 1 was dismissed. 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each from the respondent, stating inter alia that the marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent on 05.07.2002, as per Hindu rituals. Out of their wedlock, one male child was born on 27.02.2004, i.e., applicant No. 2, who is currently residing with applicant No. 1. 2. The case of the applicants is that, after the marriage of applicant No. 1 and the respondent, in order to harass applicant No. 1, the respondent left his private job and returned to Durg. Thereafter, in the year 2014, the respondent abandoned the applicants. At present, the applicants are residing at Janjgir-Champa and have no source of income. The respondent is working at Jai Balaji Industrial Limited, West Bengal. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent filed a reply to the application, in which he denied all the averments and alleged that applicant No. 1 is running a boutique styled as “Simar Collection” and is, therefore, self-sufficient and not 3 entitled to any maintenance. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on record, partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, but dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with respect to applicant No. 1, on the ground that she has an independent source of income through the boutique. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order with regard to applicant No. 1 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The finding of the Family Court that applicant No. 1 has a source of income is unsupported by any credible evidence and the finding of the Family Court that applicant No. 1 is running a boutique is contrary to the contents of Exhibit P/6. He also submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that it is a settled legal position that a husband is duty-bound to maintain his wife in accordance with his own standard of living. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partially allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the present applicants, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000/- monthly maintenance for applicant No. 2. However, maintenance was denied to applicant No. 1, as the applicants failed to prove that the respondent's monthly income exceeded three 4 times the claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, granting the applicants a total maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the respondent was deemed infeasible. The Court noted that applicant No. 1, Seema alias Tejaswini, is capable of maintaining herself, as she runs a boutique styled "Simar Collection." Therefore, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance. As such, I do not find sufficient grounds for interference in this revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from todayfor necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek