1 2025:CGHC:34638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1508 of 2019 Umesh Sahu S/o Krishna Prasad Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o M-14, Greenland, Vishal Nagar, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kalyani Sahu W/o Umesh Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Agresen Chowk, Arya Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent on I.A. No.01/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the instant revision. 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2019 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.806/2014, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married on 09.12.2011, according to social customs, at Ratanpur Mahamaya Temple. The respondent had been previously married and divorced, and this fact was disclosed to the applicant before their marriage. However, a few days after the marriage, the applicant started quarreling and physically abusing the respondent, alleging that insufficient dowry was given. The applicant would regularly come home drunk and beat the respondent. He also demanded a Honda City car from the respondent’s parents and, upon not receiving it, physically abused her and sent her back to her parental home. Since then, the respondent has been living with her parents since 2012. The respondent filed a complaint against 3 the applicant and his family members at the Women Police Station, Durg, on 05.12.2013. The respondent is a homemaker. Whereas, the applicant works as a Marketing Sales Manager at a cement factory in Jhargukhra (Odisha) and earns a monthly salary of Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the respondent seeks a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegation alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has acquired computer skills from Mumbai and is earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. She is also residing with her parents voluntarily, without any justifiable cause. Consequently, she is not eligible for maintenance. He further submits that the Family Court has made a significant legal error by allowing the application based on the respondent’s previous marriage and divorce, without taking into account that the applicant was unaware of this prior marriage and divorce, which would render the current marriage invalid. He also submits that the Family Court has passed an order allowing the respondent's application without due consideration of the facts and applicable law, contrary to established judicial principles regarding maintenance allowance, and hence the order is liable to be set aside. 4 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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 respondent and directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent is legally weeded wife of the applicant. Furthermore, the respondent’s testimony regarding the applicant's physical abuse, dowry allegations, and demand for a Honda City car, corroborated by witness Himanchal Sahu, remains unrebutted in cross-examination. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent has sufficient cause to live apart. Moreover, the applicant's claim of not working at a cement factory has been disputed, but his educational qualification of having completed an MBA remains unchallenged. Consequently, it is established that the applicant is capable of providing maintenance to the respondent, therefore, after considering the parties' social and economic status, the Family Court concluded that respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 5 9. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil