1 2025:CGHC:44607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1085 of 2025 Birendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 26 Years (At Present About 29 Years), R/o Haraam Khairjhiti, Post- Ghotwani, Tahsil And Police Station- Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Sahu W/o Birendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years (At Present About 25 Years), R/o C/o Shatruhan Lal Sahu, Naya Dhaba, Ward No. 4, Talaab Ke Paas, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Ms. Kavya Sahu D/o Birendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 8 Years (At Present About 3 Years), R/o C/o Shatruhan Lal Sahu, Naya Dhaba, Ward No. 4, Talaab Ke Paas, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2025, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, stating that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 13.05.2022, and that out of the said wedlock a female child, respondent no.2, was born on 29.04.2023. It was alleged that soon after marriage the applicant and his family members subjected respondent no.1 to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, failed to provide her proper medical care, and even after the birth of the child never inquired about her well-being. On the other hand, the applicant filed reply denying all allegations and specifically contending that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry; rather, it was the respondent who, of her own accord, left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents without any reasonable cause, despite his continuous willingness to keep and maintain her. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence, the learned Family Court, by its impugned order dated 31.05.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 from 23.12.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 is bad in law, perverse and arbitrary, and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the Family Court erred in allowing maintenance from 23.12.2023 3 without appreciating that in her statement under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, respondent no.1 nowhere stated that she is unable to maintain herself, whereas under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. such inability is a necessary precondition; rather, she was pursuing her B.Sc. final year and capable of securing employment. It is further submitted that the applicant met with a serious accident on 07.04.2023 in which his friend died and he himself had to undergo surgery, resulting in temporary locomotive disability and complete loss of income, as reflected from his medical records. He further contends that the land used for cultivation belongs to his father, not to him, and his physical condition prevents him from doing hard labour. Despite his continuous efforts to bring the respondent back, she chose to live separately without reasonable cause. It is also argued that the Family Court failed to consider his limited means and family responsibilities, and that the maintenance awarded is excessive in view of his disability. He therefore submits that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material on record, has rightly held that respondent no.1, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent no.2, being their minor daughter born out of the wedlock, are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code 4 of Criminal Procedure. The allegations of cruelty, neglect and failure to provide proper medical care, coupled with the admitted fact that the applicant neither took adequate steps to ensure the welfare of his wife nor inquired about the well-being of the minor child even after her birth, sufficiently establish neglect on the part of the applicant. The Family Court has, therefore, correctly appreciated the evidence and exercised its discretion judiciously by granting a modest amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent no.2 from 23.12.2023, which cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan