1 2025:CGHC:30925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2025 1. Smt. Rani Sahu W/o Shri Raju Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Newasa, Police Station And Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. 2. Rinky Sahu, D/o Shri Raju Sahu Aged About 7 Years R/o Village Newasa, Police Station And Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. Represented Through Their Natural Guardian / Mother (Applicant No. 01) 3. Ritesh Sahu, S/o Shri Raju Sahu Aged About 5 Years R/o Village Newasa, Police Station And Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur. Represented Through Their Natural Guardian / Mother (Applicant No. 01) ... Applicants versus Shri Raju Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bahtarai, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Bilaspur. Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.08 11:30:09 +0530 2 No.114/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 500/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter and Rs. 500/- to the applicant No. 3/son, as maintenance amount from the date of order and rejected the application with respect to the respondent No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicants No. 2 and 3 are their legitimate children born out of the wedlock. The parties married according to Hindu rites in 2013 at Village Newasa. Initially, they lived happily, but the respondent began subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, demanding dowry from her parents. Due to this harassment, the applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and live separately with her children. The applicant, lacking sufficient means to support herself and her children, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court in Bilaspur, seeking maintenance from the respondent. In her application, she stated that the respondent earns ₹20,000 per month as a laborer and also receives income from his ancestral property. In contrast, she earns only ₹10,000 per month as a tailor, which is insufficient to meet her and her children's needs. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has erred in rejecting the claim for maintenance of applicant No. 1, despite the admitted fact that she is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent and is living separately due to his cruelty and demand for dowry. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the actual income of the respondent. The assertion of applicant No. 1 that the respondent earns Rs. 20,000/- per month and also has income from ancestral 3 property has not been properly considered or rebutted by any cogent evidence from the respondent. He further submits that the meager amount of Rs. 500/- per month awarded to each of the minor children is grossly inadequate to meet their basic necessities in today's inflationary environment. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the rising cost of living and the expenses required for the proper upbringing and education of the children. The learned Family Court has not considered the financial hardship faced by the applicant No. 1. The order impugned suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the statement made by the applicant No.1/wife Smt. Rani Sahu against the respondent that he harassed her for dowry and threw her out of the house does not seem credible. In such a situation, the respondent No.1/ Smt. Rani Sahu, who is living separately from the applicant Raju Sahu, is not living separately for sufficient and proper reason. Further, the applicant No.1 in cross-examination states herself to be a healthy woman and knows sewing and embroidery work and states the respondent’s income to be Rs. 10,000/- per annum. Then, in view of the above facts, it is concluded that the responsibility of maintenance of the children is on the respondent- Raju Sahu as well as on the applicant No.1. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order 4 passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti