1 2025:CGHC:31730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 825 of 2025 1 - Smt. Reena Sahu W/o Jitendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dabripara Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur C.G. (Applicants) 2 - Ku. Laxmi D/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Mother Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Reena Sahu), R/o Village Dabripara Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur C.G. (Applicants) 3 - Pratus S/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor And Represented Through Their Mother Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Reena Sahu), R/o Village Dabripara Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur C.G. (Applicants) ... Applicant(s) versus Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Narbada Prasad Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dumariya Police Station, Patan, District Koriya (C.G.) (Non- Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 2 1. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 102 days in preferring the revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the revision is heard finally. 3. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 155/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 and rejected maintenance application for applicant No.1. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 performed marriage with respondent in the year 2009 as per their rights and rituals, then applicant started living in matrimonial house with respondent and they are having 2 child one Ku. Laxmi aged about 12 years and one son Pratus aged about 07 years. As per the application of the applicants, after the marriage, behavior of respondent suddenly changed against the applicant No.1, and respondent started abusing her in small issue and also used to beat her and respondent used to come home late night after drinking alcohol and also used to refuse to have food prepared by the applicant and respondent used to talk to another girl and when applicant objected about this behavior of the respondent, he used to beat her. The applicant when in the month February 2022 wanted to go in her parental house with her 3 child, the respondent made issue and also abused her taking that small issue and thrown out her from the house, thereby she is living in her parental house and respondent is a government teacher and getting Rs. 30,000/- per month as salary and he is also having agriculture land by which he is earning more than 3 lakhs per annum. The learned Trial Court has recorded evidence of parties and after its meticulous examination held that applicants No. 2 and 3 are entitled for grant of maintenance amount Rs. 3000-3000/- per months (Total Rs.6000/-) but dismissed maintenance application for petitioner no 1. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that impugned order learned Family Court awarded meager amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000- 3000/- (Total Rs.6000/-) per month to the applicants No.2 and 3 and rejected the application filed by the applicant No.1. and erred in computing the maintenance amount, specifically in view of material evidence available on record. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that respondent was posted as government teacher and earning Rs. 39,380 per month as Salary. Also, the learned family Court failed to consider the ground that respondent always used to come in drunken conditions and also misbehaved with applicant and also used to beat her therefore she was living separately with sufficient reason and she also lodged report against the respondent in police station which indicates sufficient ground for living separately but learned family Court failed to consider the same and rejected the application 4 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for applicant No.1 on her behalf, which is wrong and bad in law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (each) to applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. Further, the application on behalf of applicant No.1 was rejected observing that she is living separately from the respondent on her own will without sufficient reason. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil