1 2025:CGHC:34073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 926 of 2022 Rupendra Sahu S/o Mordhwaj Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Singhola , House No. 396 , Police Station O.P. Surgi , Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Nutan Sahu W/o Rupendra Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chhuikhadan, Post Karamtara, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vaibhav Sahu S/o Rupendra Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nutan Sahu W/o Rupendra Sahu , Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Chhuikhadan, Post Karamtara, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhavya Sahu S/o Rupendra Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nutan Sahu W/o Rupendra Sahu , Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Chhuikhadan, Post Karamtara, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Renji Sahu S/o Rupendra Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nutan Sahu W/o Rupendra Sahu , Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Chhuikhadan, Post Karamtara, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Non-Applicants : None RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application and set aside/modify the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant no.1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the applicant (husband), stating that their marriage was solemnized on 21.05.2002 as per Hindu customs at Village Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, and they have three children (non-applicants no. 2 to 4) from the wedlock. The couple lived peacefully for about 10 years, after which the applicant allegedly started consuming alcohol and misbehaving with the wife. On 19.09.2018, he used abusive language and attempted to evict her along with the children, following which she returned to her parental home and has been residing there since 20.09.2018. Despite counseling at Mahila Cell, Rajnandgaon, the applicant failed to mend his behavior. The non-applicant no.1 has no independent source of income, while the applicant is a head constable earning Rs. 39,288/- per month and 3 also owns 6 acres of agricultural land. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and claimed that the non-applicant left voluntarily, earns from a beauty parlor and cake business, and that her father, a headmaster, owns agricultural land. Both parties filed affidavits and were cross-examined. After hearing both sides, the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, by order dated 22.06.2022, granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife, Rs. 3,000/- each to non- applicants no. 2 and 3, and Rs. 2,000/- to non-applicant no. 4, totaling Rs. 13,000/- per month from the date of application (22.11.2018). The applicant challenges this order as illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, hence the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed serious illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order of maintenance. Firstly, the Court erred in concluding that the applicant has refused or neglected to maintain the non-applicants, despite the fact that non- applicant no.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and is residing with her parents of her own free will. Secondly, the Family Court failed to appreciate and consider the income of non-applicant no.1, who is earning from running a beauty parlor and home-based cake business. This non-consideration of her earnings has adversely affected the rights and interests of the applicant. Lastly, the learned Court arbitrarily granted a total maintenance of Rs. 13,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- to the wife, Rs. 3,000/- each to non-applicants no. 2 and 3, and Rs. 2,000/- to non- applicant no. 4), without considering the actual financial obligations 4 and liabilities of the applicant, whose monthly income is only Rs. 43,967/- (gross), which includes various deductions. The maintenance awarded is excessive, disproportionate, and contrary to settled legal principles, warranting interference by this Court in revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order dated 22.06.2022, awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. It was correctly observed that the non-applicant no.1 (wife) was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to the applicant’s abusive behavior and habitual consumption of alcohol, particularly the incident on 19.09.2018 when he used filthy language and attempted to evict her and the children. Despite efforts through counseling at the Mahila Cell, Rajnandgaon, the applicant failed to bring any positive change, leaving the wife and children with no option but to reside at her parental home. The Family Court has also taken into account the financial needs of the wife and three minor children, who have no independent source of income, while the applicant is a government employee earning a regular monthly salary and also owns agricultural land. Therefore, the award of Rs. 13,000/- as total monthly maintenance Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and appropriate amounts to each child is just, reasonable, and in line 5 with the settled principles of law, ensuring the welfare and sustenance of the dependents. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan