1 2025:CGHC:29199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1450 of 2019 Hemant Sahu S/o Ramkhilawan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Berla Kala, Post Office Gugheli, Police Station And Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Divya Sahu W/o Hemant Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Atariya, Post Office And Out Post Damapur, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Nitin Sahu S/o Hemant Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Divya Sahu, W/o Hemant Sahu. R/o Village Atariya, Post Office And Out Post Damapur, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3. Bhupendra Sahu S/o Hemant Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Divya Sahu, W/o Hemant Sahu. R/o Village Atariya, Post Office And Out Post Damapur, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents : None. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:40:41 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order passed by the Family Court Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 143/2019 “Smt. Divya Sahu and Others Vs. Hemant Sahu” dated 25.09.2019 and further be pleased to dismiss the application filed by non-applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case that the respondent No. 1 was married to the applicant in the month of February 2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, two children were born, who are respondents No. 2 and 3 in the present case. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that after the birth of their first son, the applicant started harassing her and she was assaulted by the applicant. The applicant, suspecting her of having an affair, used to beat her. She has been deserted by her husband along with the children for the last two years and has been compelled to reside in her parental home. The children are school- 3 going boys, and she has no means of income, whereas the applicant is cultivating double crops over 10 acres of land and is also engaged in the business of agricultural medicines, thereby earning Rs. 20,000- 25,000/- per month. Thus, respondent No. 1 sought maintenance of Rs. 13,000/- per month for the survival of herself and her children. 5. The applicant filed a reply stating that respondent No. 1 is a promiscuous woman and that he never assaulted or abused her. It was further stated that she is residing separately of her own will, and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in his favor in a case filed by him. It was also contended that she has sufficient means of income and therefore is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 6. The learned Family Court held that there is no evidence of adultery against respondent No. 1 and that there is evidence of cruelty and harassment by the husband. It was also observed that she was not provided with medical treatment when she was ill. Though respondent No. 1 could not prove the income of the applicant, the Court held that the applicant is physically well-built and can earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Court ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 700/- per month to each of the two children, totaling Rs. 3,400/- per month as maintenance. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent No. 1 is residing separately of her own will; therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. He submits that a decree for restitution of conjugal 4 rights has been passed in favor of the applicant, but despite this, she has refused to reside with the applicant, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance on this ground as well. The respondent No. 1 failed to prove the income of the applicant; therefore, the amount of Rs. 3,400/- per month awarded as maintenance is excessive considering the financial and social condition of the applicant. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 was having an affair with one Rikhiram, and this fact has been admitted by her in her evidence; therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The applicant is still willing to maintain the respondents, but respondent No. 1 does not wish to reside with him, which goes against her; however, this aspect has not been considered by the learned Family Court. 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 respondents 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