1 2025:CGHC:43000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1054 of 2025 Champeshwar Sahu S/o Bhojram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Ward No. 12, Aamdi Gauntiya Para, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Vasini (Rani) Sahu W/o Champeshwar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Borway (Jamgaon), Ward No. 3, Aadarsh Chowk, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Nomesh Sahu S/o Champeshwar Sahu Aged About 5 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Vasini (Rani) Sahu, R/o Village Borway (Jamgaon), Ward No. 3, Aadarsh Chowk, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned First ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.26 17:33:22 +0530 2 Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case number 1009/2023, titled as Smt. Vasini (Rani) Sahu& Another Vs. Champeshwar Sahu, and 2. Allow the present criminal revision filed by the applicant, 3. and/or pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 07/05/2019 according to Hindu customs and rites at Village Borway, District Durg (C.G.). During the course of their wedlock, one son was born, who is now aged about 5 years. It is submitted that after a few months of marriage, the respondent began to quarrel with the applicant over trivial matters, which he used to tolerate. The respondent No. 1 frequently left the appellant’s house and went to her parental home without any reasonable cause. She often used to call her father, accompany him, and remain at her father’s house for long periods. The applicant made several attempts to bring her back and requested her not to spoil their conjugal relationship, as it would adversely affect their son’s life, but she did not care and continued to live with her father. Ultimately, she refused to live with the applicant. It is further submitted that the father of the applicant has become a Sanyasi and is living elsewhere at an unknown place. His brother is employed and living separately with his own wife and children. The applicant repeatedly suggested and requested the respondent No.1 to settle her life with him, but she finally refused and has been residing at her father’s house along with their minor son since April 2023. Thereafter, the 3 respondent No. 1 filed a case for maintenance before the Family Court, Durg, wherein she also stated on oath that she would not reside with the applicant at any cost. The applicant also requested the Court to direct the respondent No. 1 to return to the matrimonial home along with the son, but she refused before the Court. 4. The statements of the applicant and the respondent No.1 were recorded, and the father of the respondent No. 1 refused to give any statement before the Court. 5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order directing the appellant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, totaling Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month as maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has grossly erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order against the applicant. He submits that learned Family Court has misappreciated and misapprehended the entire evidence on record, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Learned Family Court acted arbitrarily and not in accordance with the principles of law as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to apply its judicial mind in appreciating the law and facts on record, and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No. 1 is not willing to reside with the applicant and has willfully deserted him; as such, she is not entitled to claim maintenance in any manner. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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 respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek