1 2025:CGHC:29193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1564 of 2019 Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Panchram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Vil- lage Kapasda, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus Smt. Savitri Sahu W/o Ramesh Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kapasda , Police Station Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently Re- siding Through Father Tikaram Sahu , R/o Khairakhut Police Station Dharsiwa, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Misc. Criminal case No.667/2017 whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to respondent/wife. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:07 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the Applicant (Husband) and Respondent (Wife) was solemnized on 22.4.2004 as per Hindu customs and rituals. Initially, for first six months, the applicant was in good behavior with respondent, thereafter, applicant and his family members started abusing her. The family used to give little vegetables to her to cook and after cooking she was abused by mother- in- law for making little vegetables. During marriage it was told to respondent that her mother-in-law is incapable but after marriage she found that she is capable and can work also. The applicant used to beat her and torture her. During the time when respondent was pregnant and was painting the house, the applicant pushed her because of which she fell down. Thereafter, she was admitted to hospital and after discharge was sent to maternal home, where she gave birth to child. The applicant never came to see her child. Thereafter, applicant contracted second marriage out of which he has two children. Further, the respondent claimed Rs. 8000/- towards maintenance and Rs. 5000 towards expenses on ground that applicant is working and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciated the fact that respondent left her husband's home way back in year 2004 and instant application for maintenance was filed almost after 12 years. The learned Family Court should have rejected the claim on this ground alone. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that child born out of marriage between applicant and respondent is residing with his father only. The respondent after delivery of child gave it to her 3 husband and she never cared about her child. The child is residing with his father. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that, respondent gave divorce to applicant before the meeting of panchayat. The applicant was always willing to keep her but she never wanted to live with her husband neither she wanted the child. The respondent to cover her own fault leveled baseless allegations against applicant and his family members that they ill treated her wherein the admitted fact is that she herself was not interested in her married life and wanted to get away. The learned Family Court committed illegality in passing order in favour of respondent. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that applicant is working in a private company and is earning a meager amount of Rs. 10-12 thousand per month and despite that have been directed to pay 6,000/- per month to respondent which is erroneous and bad in law. The applicant has two children which are to be looked out by applicant. Further, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent herself states that she has no source of income while the applicant claims to be working in Vandana Global Company. The applicant Ramesh Kumar Sahu has presented his salary slip of November 2018 4 according to which it is mentioned that he received Rs 11,985/- after deduction. The applicant himself admits to earning Rs 11-12 thousand in his affidavit-in-chief and he receives a salary of Rs 14,000/-. From this it is clear that the applicant is a financially capable person and it is his responsibility to maintain the applicant and on this basis the respondent is eligible to get maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance amount from the applicant, so the application of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is allowed. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti