1 2025:CGHC:28180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1067 of 2019 Bharatlal Sahu S/o Late Laxman Sahu Aged About 45 Years At Present R/o Village Risdi (Beside Sonu Tent House), Post Risdi, Ward No. 32 District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Nageshwari Sahu W/o Shri Bharatlal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajgamar, Gayatri Nagar, P. S. Rajgamar, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Aman Sahu S/o Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nageshwari Sahu, At Present R/o Rajgamar Nayatri Nagar, P. S. Rajgamar, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:39:47 +0530 2 following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and to set-aside impugned judgment daetd 31.07.2019 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Korba, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 04/2018 (Parties being Smt. Nageshwari Sahu and Another Vs. Bharatlal Sahu), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant solemnized marriage with respondent No.1 and, from the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. After the marriage, the applicant became habitually addicted to alcohol and subjected the respondents to mental harassment and torture. It was further stated that the applicant abandoned respondent No.1 at the matrimonial home. Although a counseling session was held between the applicant and respondent No.1, the applicant did not mend his behavior. Consequently, the respondents started residing at respondent No.1’s parental home. It was also stated that the respondents have no independent source of income for their survival, while the applicant is engaged in tent and sound service work at Village Risdi, Ward No. 32, and earns Rs 40,000/- per month. Hence, the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. 4. The applicant filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the maintenance application. He specifically stated that he 3 never harassed or tortured the respondent. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 31.07.2019, directing the applicant to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- to respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent, without any sufficient reason, left the house of the applicant and has been living separately. The learned Family Court failed to recognize that the applicant never misbehaved with the respondent and always attempted to maintain his matrimonial relationship. The respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and has not made any effort to return and live with the applicant. He submits that the respondent has consistently behaved cruelly towards the applicant, whereas the applicant has never ill-treated her. The respondent quarreled with the applicant and his family members without any valid reason. She voluntarily left her matrimonial home and filed the application for maintenance merely to harass the applicant, despite being capable of maintaining herself. He also submits that the respondent No. 2 is currently a major and is about 18 years old, which is clearly evident from his educational certificate. Therefore, he is not entitled to receive maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the respondent left her matrimonial 4 home of her own free will. She is a well-educated woman, earning more than the applicant, and is in a better financial position than the applicant. The applicant is living with his elderly parents and is responsible for their care, including expenses for their medical treatment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 04/18 vide order dated 31.07.2019. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek