1 2025:CGHC:36129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 56 of 2023 Mithalesh Sahu S/o Govind Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dhamani, Post Salauni, P.S. Palari, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sunita Sahu W/o Mithalesh Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chhachhi, P.S. Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Dulari Sahu D/o Shri Mithalesh Sahu Aged About 1 Years R/o Village Chhachhi, P.S. Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar in Misc. Criminal Case No.165/2022, whereby, the learned Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance. The applicant had solemnized marriage with respondent No. 1 on June 20, 2020, and they had a daughter, respondent No. 2. After some time, the applicant and his family members allegedly harassed and mentally tortured the respondent over dowry demands and sought money from her. The applicant, being a skilled worker, earns an annual income of Rs. 1,00,000/- while the respondent has no source of income. Therefore, the respondent sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant. After receiving notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. The learned Family Court framed issues and passed an order on December 10, 2022, allowing the respondent's application and directing the applicant to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500 to the respondents. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No. 1 has made false allegations against the applicant, as no land has been recorded in his name in the revenue records. Respondent No. 1 allegedly pressured the applicant to include his name in the revenue records for the said land, further the respondent No. 1 3 would often quarrel and dispute with the applicant and his family members without sufficient reason. She allegedly did not like living with the applicant in a joint family setup and pressured him to live separately. He further submits that the respondent No. 1/applicant left the house of the applicant on her own without any reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the respondent no. 1/applicant has failed to prove the income of the applicant. The applicant is totally dependent on his family members, and his parents belong to a poor family. Therefore, the applicant is unable to pay any maintenance amount to respondent No. 1. Hence, the impugned maintenance order (Annexure A-1) is liable to be set aside/quashed. He also submits that just after marriage, respondent No. 1 was not interested in her marital life and refused to live with the applicant and his family members. Hence, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent No.1 is forced to live with her daughter at her parental home due to the alleged harassment and cruel behavior by the applicant and his family members, as stated by the respondents. Thus, the respondents have sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant. Further, applicant earns income has not been proved. However, it is noteworthy that the applicant himself has stated that he earns Rs. 150/- per day through labor work. In such a situation, it is certain that the applicant is financially capable. Moreover, it is a well-established principle of law that if a person is physically and mentally fit, it is his moral, social, and legal responsibility to maintain his legally wedded wife and legitimate or illegitimate children. Thus, the applicant is financially capable. The Family Court after considering the social and economical status of both the parties concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil