1 2025:CGHC:34594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1015 of 2023 Arjun Sahu S/o Shri Lakshmi Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Bodemuda, Tehsil And Police Station - Khadgawan, District Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (M.C.B.) ... Applicant versus Bharti Sahu D/o Late Lakshman Sahu Aged About 29 Years W/o Arjun Sahu, Caste - Teli, R/o Near Ahmed Colony, Ward No. 20, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (M.C.B.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ 1. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 181/2022, from the Court below. 2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:47 +0530 2 order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 181/2022. 3. That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the impugn order dated 17.08.2023, till the pendency of the instant revision. 4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was stated that she was married to the applicant on 01.12.2020 at Manendragarh, as per Hindu customs. It was further stated that after the marriage, she resided with the applicant at his house situated in Village Bodemuda, where she performed her conjugal duties with the applicant. It was further stated that after the marriage, she was tortured by the applicant and his family for a demand of dowry. It was alleged that the applicant used to say that he had not been given an A.C., cooler, sofa, gold chain, and cash, upon which she informed her father, who tried to make her understand the situation. She did not report the matter, thinking that everything would eventually improve. It was also alleged that the respondent came to know that the applicant had married another woman, and when she questioned him, he admitted it and started beating her, telling her that both women should live together. On the night of 29.06.2022, the applicant brought a woman named Shivani Sahuat home and started forcing the respondent to live with her. When she refused, the applicant beat her and drove her away from the house. On 30.06.2022, she lodged a report against the applicant and his family at Police Station Khadgawan, called her family, and went to her parental 3 home in Manendragarh. It was further stated that the respondent is a housewife and is suffering from various illnesses, due to which she is unable to work for her maintenance. It was contended that the applicant owns a pickup vehicle and earns Rs. 50,000/- per month by transporting materials, and therefore, she claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant denied all adverse contentions in the maintenance application and stated that he never tortured the respondent nor made any demands from her. He contended that the respondent used to say that her family members had married her off to a boy from the village. He denied being married to a woman named Shivani. It was stated that the respondent herself had a dispute with the applicant and, on her own will, went to her parental home. It was further contended that the respondent is an educated woman who does sewing and embroidery work and also provides tuition to children, due to which she earns Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant works as a labourer and barely earns an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was further contended that the allegations made by the respondent are false, and it was prayed that the application submitted by the respondent be rejected. 5. Thereafter, the learned Family Court proceeded with the matter, framed the following issues, and decided accordingly: (i) Whether the respondent is living separately from the applicant with sufficient reason? (ii) Whether the respondent is unable to maintain herself? (iii) Whether the applicant is responsible for the maintenance of the respondent, and if so, what amount should be awarded? 4 6. After framing the aforesaid issues, the respondent examined herself, and the applicant also examined himself before the trial Court. Both parties submitted affidavits as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant also produced evidence before the learned Family Court, whereas the respondent did not file any documents in support of the contentions made in her application. Thereafter, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 14.12.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the orders passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, and bad in law, and are therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent, which is contrary to the documents and material available on record, and is therefore bad in law. He further submits that learned Family Court erred in not framing an issue as to whether the applicant committed physical and mental cruelty. The applicant has never refused to live with the respondent; however, without any sufficient reason, the respondent is not residing with the applicant and his family. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance amount from the applicant, and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also submits that learned Family Court also failed to consider that the respondent is educated and knows sewing and embroidery work, and is capable of maintaining herself. In fact, she has been maintaining herself for more than one year without receiving any maintenance from the applicant. Learned Family Court has not considered that the respondent is living separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason. The respondent has taken the grounds of cruelty, demand for dowry, and the 5 applicant alleged second marriage as reasons for living separately; however, she has not produced any documents or filed any complaints before the learned trial court to support these claims. Therefore, it is clear that the grounds taken by the respondent for living separately have not been proved. He submits that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive considering the income, liabilities, and expenses of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant has declared his monthly income to be only Rs. 3,000/- and that he has the responsibility of taking care of his aged parents. Learned Family Court has not considered the documents available on record and the reply filed by the applicant, and the maintenance order has been passed without appreciating the facts and documents on record, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek