1 2025:CGHC:28172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1141 of 2019 Chandrakanta Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Piparkhar Post Nahada, Police Station Dewri, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt Neera Sahu W/o Chandrakanta Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Piparkhar, Present Address Village Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sameer Sahu S/o Chandrakanta Age About 01 Month, Minor, On Behalf Of His Mother And Guardian Smt Neera Sahu W/o Chandrakanta Sahu, R/o Village Piparkhar, Present Address Village Tedesara, Police Station Somni, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Dewangan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Revision may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 148/2017 concerned may kindly be set aside and the operation and effect for execution of the order concerned be stayed till the disposal of this Revision Petition, in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant, Chandrakant Sahu, and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 16.04.2016 at Tedesara. After marriage, respondent no.1 lived at her matrimonial home in Piparkhar for about ten months, during which she became pregnant. Around the third month of her pregnancy, she left for her parental home in Tedesara, where she gave birth to a male child, Sameer, in August 2017. In September 2017, just a month after delivery, respondent no.1 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, despite several efforts made by the applicant and his family to bring her and the child back. The applicant also approached community forums such as the Sahu Samaj to reconcile, but respondent no.1 remained uncooperative and did not attend the meetings or accept their suggestions. It is alleged that she used her one-month-old son as a pretext to file the maintenance case, while also leveling false and 3 defamatory accusations of dowry demand and harassment against the applicant and his father. The applicant claims that the Family Court’s order dated 30.05.2019 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 148/2017 was passed without proper appreciation of facts. He further states that he still wishes to live with his wife and son, but is financially unable to pay ₹1500 monthly maintenance due to his illness and erratic income, having already spent a substantial amount on medical treatment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 148/2017 is wholly illegal, improper, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and therefore deserves to be set aside in its entirety. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are not based on the evidence available on record and reflect a clear instance of illegality, perversity, and a biased approach in adjudicating the matter. The allegations of cruelty made by the respondent/wife are not supported by sufficient or credible evidence, yet the Court erroneously accepted those claims without proper judicial scrutiny. The order suffers from non-application of mind and a lack of appreciation of material evidence and witness testimonies brought forth by the applicant. Consequently, the conclusions drawn are perverse, unsustainable, and not in consonance with the factual matrix of the case, thereby necessitating interference by this Hon’ble Court to secure the ends of justice. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, by its order dated 30.05.2019, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion by partially allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 CrPC. Considering the basic necessities and welfare of both the respondent no.1 (wife) and the minor child, the Court has directed the applicant to pay a reasonable amount of ₹1000 per month to the wife and ₹500 per month to the child, totaling ₹1500 per month, payable by the 10th of each month from the date of the order. The amount awarded reflects a balanced and fair consideration of the financial condition of the applicant, his willingness to support his family, and the legitimate needs of the dependents. The Court’s decision ensures minimal sustenance to the wife and child without imposing any excessive financial burden on the applicant, and is, therefore, just, appropriate, and in accordance with law and principles of equity. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan