1 2025:CGHC:38475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1040 of 2022 1. Smt. Bhanmati @ Tarini Sahu W/o Leeladhar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Bandhuram Sahu, Village - Farauda, Police Station - Tendukona, Tahsil - Pithora,, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Prafull Sahu S/o Leeladhar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Bhanmati @ Tarini Sahu, R/o C/o Bandhuram Sahu, Village - Farauda, Police Station - Tendukona, Tahsil – Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Leeladhar Sahu S/o Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bhurkoni, Police Station - Tendukona, Tahsil - Pithora,, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shashikant Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant maintenance in favour of applicant No. 1 to the tune of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.05 20:02:04 +0530 2 Rs. 10,000/- per month and suitably enhance the maintenance amount awarded in favour of applicant No. 2, from Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mahasamund, seeking maintenance. The applicant No. 1 and the respondent are wife and husband, and out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2 (minor child) was born. After some time of marriage, the respondent subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty on account of dowry demands, and ultimately, he ousted both the applicants from the matrimonial home. The applicants are currently residing at the parental house of applicant No. 1 and have no independent source of income. Therefore, they filed an application seeking maintenance and interim maintenance. The respondent is running a choice center, a cloth shop, a provision store, a betel shop, and also owns agricultural land. He earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. However, despite having sufficient means, the respondent has not paid even a single penny towards the maintenance of the applicants. 3. Upon service of notice, the respondent filed a reply stating that the applicants are residing separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, rejected the application of applicant No. 1. However, maintenance to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- per month was allowed in favor of applicant No. 2, from the date of the application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 3 09.09.2022 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, it is therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that without any material evidence, the learned Family Court has erred in holding that applicant No. 1 is not entitled to interim maintenance, as she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent used to beat and torture applicant No. 1 and had ousted her from his house. Learned Family Court has failed to consider that the respondent has made no effort to bring back the applicants to his house. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is running a choice center, cloth shop, provision shop, and a betel shop, and also owns agricultural land. He earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient sources of income, he has not paid a single penny towards the maintenance of the applicants. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1 has no source of income and is therefore unable to maintain herself. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the maintenance awarded in favor of applicant No. 2 is insufficient in the present societal scenario, as he is a school- going boy who requires school fees, tuition fees, uniforms, and books. Hence, the maintenance amount deserves to be enhanced. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant No. 1, being the legally wedded wife, is entitled to maintain a standard of living at par with the respondent. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and prayers made by learned counsel for the applicants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No. 2. However, the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by applicant No. 1 was rejected, observing that applicant No. 1 is living separately from the respondent without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the concerned Family Court is just and proper. 9. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek