1 2025:CGHC:41485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1409 of 2024 1. Smt. Dipeshwari W/o Shri Hikeshwar Sahu Aged About 29 Years Village And Post Baghmara Police Station And Tehsil, District Balod (C.G.) 2. Kumar Hani D/o Shri Hikeshwar Sahu, Aged About 4 Months, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Namely-Smt. Dipeshwari, W/o Shri Hikeshwar Sahu R/o Village And Post Baghmara Police Station And Tehsil, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Hikershwar Sahu S/o Santram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chirpoti Police Station Anda, And District Durg (CG) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.309/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:20 +0530 2 and directed the respondent to pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to applicant No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the grounds that Applicant No. 1 and the respondent were married on 01.07.2021 at Baghmara, District Balod, and that Applicant No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. Soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members began harassing Applicant No. 1 mentally over dowry demands. Her mother-in-law allegedly threatened her to leave the house so the respondent could remarry. Applicant No. 1 is less educated, has a minor child, and is unable to support herself. Her parents are also poor and unable to maintain the applicants. It was submitted that the respondent runs a hotel and a retail shop in Chirpoti, earning approximately Rs.60,000 per month (Rs.7,20,000 annually). He also owns two harvesters and three tractors, earning around Rs.5,00,000 annually from them, and holds seven acres of agricultural land yielding another Rs.10,00,000 annually. 3. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations and claimed that Applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any reason. He also submitted that she filed a dowry-related complaint with the police and initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The Learned Family Court concluded that there were sufficient reasons for Applicant No. 1 to reside separately. Notably, the respondent, in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, denied being the father of Applicant No. 2 and stated he was willing to 3 undergo a DNA test, although no such application was filed. However, in Exhibit D-14—his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act—he admitted that Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 are his wife and daughter, respectively. These contradictory statements between his pleadings under Section 125 CrPC and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act raise serious questions. Furthermore, the respondent admitted to withdrawing his Section 9 petition after it was transferred from Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Balod. The Learned Family Court has erred in assessing the respondent’s earning capacity and the genuine needs of the applicants. Despite evidence indicating the respondent’s financial well-being and prosperous lifestyle, the maintenance awarded does not reflect his true capacity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the Learned Family Court failed to adequately consider the actual financial needs of the applicants, particularly in the case of a 4- month-old child who requires specialized care. The Learned Family Court failed to properly assess or ensure full disclosure of the respondent’s income. The Learned Family Court overlooked the contradictory statements made by the respondent in an attempt to evade his responsibilities towards Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2. The Learned Family Court failed to take note of the respondent’s deliberate non-disclosure of his true income, assets, and financial capacity. The Learned Family Court did not consider that the respondent has a far greater ability to pay a higher amount of maintenance than what has been awarded. The Learned Family 4 Court ignored the respondent’s inconsistent statements, which were aimed at avoiding legal and financial obligations towards the applicants. The impugned order is bad in law, arbitrary, and perverse, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti