1 2025:CGHC:38867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 861 of 2023 Rewati Sahu S/o Shri Tularam Sahu Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Private Service, R/o Village- Kirari (D), Police Station- Dabhara And District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Nand Kumari Sao W/o Shri Rewati Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Nothing, R/o Village Kusmura, Post Kotra, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Rudra Sao S/o Shri Rewati Sahu Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Heirs Mother Smt. Nand Kumari Sao, R/o Village Kusmura, Post Kotra, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-92/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that on 03.09.2021 an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, has been filed by the respondents and they had requested to provide maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant herein. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondents on 10.07.2016 in village Kusmura, Tahsil and district Raigarh as per social customs and their conjugal relationship On 03.07.2017, a son, Rudra Sao/respondent No.2 was born. It is also an accepted fact in the case that at present the respondents along with her son respondent No. 2 is living separately from the applicant. The respondents application in brief is as follows that, at the time of marriage, the parents of the applicant were given various household articles, gold- silver and cash to the applicant as STRIDHAN according to their status. After marriage, the respondents came to know about the divorce of the applicant, the fact of which the applicant has suppressed from the respondents , just after the marriage, the respondents was harassed by beating and abusing for insufficient dowry, one day the applicant was questioning on the character, applicant's father used to see with evil eyes, and it was common for him to touch her wrongly and due to which the respondents used to stay away from him. The father-in-law after seeing that his objective was not being fulfilled, used to allege that the character of the respondents was not right. the father-in-law of the respondents works as a doctor, due to which he used to treat the respondents himself when she fell ill and deliberately tried to spoil the mental condition of the respondents by giving wrong medicines. The respondents was taunted by the applicant saying that she had brought 3 less things in dowry, she, was humiliated, bad food was given, beaten and abused, she was not allowed to go out of the house and was also prevented from talking to her parents. One lakh in dowry to the applicant from her parents by the respondent rupees in cash, gold chain etc. and ten lakh rupees were demanded for four wheeler. When a conversation was held with the applicant regarding harassment of the respondents by the parents of the applicant, then the respondent was expelled from the house on 03.02.2017, since then the respondents stayed in her maternal house. During her stay at her maternal home, the respondents gave birth to a son, whom the applicant did not come to see and all the expenses incurred at the time of the birth of the child were borne by the parents of the respondents. According to the application, a case of domestic violence has been presented by the respondents against the applicant, where the court has passed an order to give Rs. 3000/ As long as the respondents lived in her in-laws house, she was continuously harassed for dowry by the applicant and she continued to be a victim of domestic violence, finally the respondents was driven away by the applicant to her maternal home, since then the respondents are living in the maternal home. Applicant herein is earning 22,000/- per month by doing a private job at Punjipathara and the rest by renting tractor earns an income of Rs.25,000/- per month. The applicant has 18 acres of agricultural land in Kirari and Bhainapara, from which he earns an income of two lakh rupees every year. Thus, the monthly income of the applicant is around Rs.60,000/-. The applicant is the husband of the respondents 1, and the father of respondents no. 2 and it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the respondents according to their living standards. In the above situation, Rs. 15,000/- per month should be given to the respondents as maintenance. By denying all the averments in the 4 application, the applicant herein has mainly stated in his reply that, the respondents resided at the applicant's place for about 3 months after the marriage, in the meantime the respondents did not live in village Kirari, along with the parents of the applicant, Always talked about living and staying in Raigarh with the applicant, she used to go to her maternal home and when taken by the applicant, she used to come with, The respondents went to her maternal home on 03.02.2017 after calling her parents and sister-in-law at village Kirari on the pretext of ill health, When she did not come for a week, he himself went to took the respondents several times, but the respondents refused to come to Kirari with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant took several persons to pick up the respondents , where the respondents agreed to go on the condition of staying with the applicant at Kirodimal Nagar. According to the said condition, the applicant brought the respondents to the rented house of Farmesh Sahu in Kirodimal Nagar, which the respondents did not like and went back to her maternal home, then she was 3-4 months pregnant. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 12,000/- to the respondent per month. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and 5 evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent already receiving Rs. 3,500/- per month in the matter of Domestic Violence, the same was not adjusted by the learned Family Court anywhere in the impugned order was erroneously passed as the amount of maintenance shall be given from the date of filing the application without any specific reason. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. F-92/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 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 6 by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar