1 2025:CGHC:36885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 32 of 2020 1 - Smt. Mamta Sahu W/o Shri Jayendra Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - N. T. P. C. Sipat, Police Station - Sipat, Tahsil And Civil - Revenue District And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Soumya Sahu D/o Shri Jayendra Sahu Aged About 6 Years Petitioner No. 02, Being Minor Represented By Petitioner No. 01 Her Mother Smt. Mamta Sahu W/o Shri Jayendra Sahu , R/o Village - N. T. P. C. Sipat, Police Station - Sipat, Tahsil And Civil - Revenue District And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Jayendra Sahu S/o Shri Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 38 Years By Post - Infosys Limited - Pune R/o Plot No. 01, Rajeev Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi - Taluka, Mulsi, Police Station - Pune, Civil - Revenue District And District - Pune ( Maharastra ) 411057 At Present R/o - C - 01 - 807, Royal Castle Society, Near Dange Chowk, Thergaon, Police Station - Thergaon, District - Pune ( Maharastra ) 411033 Mobile No. 07507999250, District : Pune, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Family Court Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.274/2016, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact in the case that the marriage between the applicant No. 1, Smt. Mamta Sahu, and the respondent, Jayendra Sahu, was solemnized on 23.01.11 according to Hindu rites and customs. From their matrimonial life, applicant No. 2, Ku. Soumya Sahu, was born on 04.05.13 in Bilaspur. According to the application, after the marriage, the respondent took the applicant No. 1 to his home in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, after performing the Gauna ceremony, where she started living with her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. After some days, the respondent took his wife to Pune, Maharashtra, where he was working. At the time of marriage, the applicant's parents gave her approximately 10 tolas of gold jewelry, 50 tolas of silver jewelry, and clothes, which are currently in her matrimonial home in Raipur, and some items are with the respondent in Pune. Similarly, the respondent transferred Rs. 8 lakhs from the joint account of the applicant and respondent in IDBI Bank, Pune branch, 3 to another account without the applicant's permission and knowledge. The respondent consumes alcohol and treats the applicant cruelly. Despite the respondent's cruel behavior and physical and mental harassment, the applicant continued to live with him, hoping for improvement in the future. When the applicant's younger sister's marriage was to take place, the respondent, along with the applicant and their daughter, left Pune to attend the ceremony in Seepat. However, the respondent left his wife and daughter alone at the train station in Raipur at night and did not attend the marriage. He returned to Pune without informing them. Despite efforts by the applicant and her parents to convince and call the respondent, he refused to take them back. 3. On 02.01.15, the applicant's parents took her to the respondent's place, where he behaved rudely with them and refused to keep his wife and daughter. The respondent, along with his sister, Santoshi Sahu, her daughter, Preeti Sahu, his sister-in-law, Shailendri Sahu, her daughter, Chitra Sahu, and his father, Dhaniram Sahu, taunted and harassed the applicant over dowry demands. The applicant No. 1 has been living with her parents since 22.11.14, after being abandoned by the respondent, and has been deprived of marital bliss. The applicant has no source of income, while the respondent is a healthy and able-bodied person with a annual income of Rs. 16 lakhs from his job and a monthly income of Rs. 25,000 from rent of houses in Raipur. However, he is refusing to provide maintenance to his wife and child. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- per month as maintenance for the 4 applicants. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicants. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has granted maintenance to the applicants as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, awarding maintenance of Rs. 10,000 to the wife and Rs. 10,000 to the daughter per month from the date of the order, is flawed and contains material illegality, perversity, and irregularity. The order is bad in the eyes of law, as it fails to appreciate the evidence properly and is based on incorrect calculations and the same is liable to be modified by this Court by enhancing the awarded amount from the date of filing the application, rather than from the date of the order. He further submits that the respondent had forcefully threatened the applicant No.1, demanding dowry, and kicked her out of the matrimonial home for not fulfilling the demand. He also retained her gold and silver ornaments and wrongfully withdrew Rs. 8 lakhs from the joint account in IDBI Bank, Pune, without her knowledge. Given the respondent's negligent behavior and failure to discharge his obligations, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance of Rs. 60,000 per month. The respondent's financial capacity is evident from his employment at Infosys Limited in Pune, where he earns an annual salary of Rs. 16 lakhs, and also receives a monthly rental income of Rs. 25,000/- from a house in Raipur. Therefore, the monthly maintenance 5 awarded by the Family Court to the applicants is on lower side and the same is needs to be enhanced. 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 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that it is admitted fact that applicant No.1 is wife of respondent and applicant No.2 is her daughter, further the respondent claims that the applicant's younger sister, Seema, stayed with him at his Pune residence for 8 months, which has been admitted by the applicant, Smt. Mamta Sahu (applicant No. 1), during her cross-examination. The respondent has alleged that the applicant's sister, Seema, behaved with him with ulterior motives, but no evidence has been provided to support this claim. This unsubstantiated allegation by the respondent indicates his mental harassment towards the applicant. The respondent abandoned the applicant at her parental home after her younger sister's marriage and refused to take her back despite her efforts to reconcile. Therefore, the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent. The Family Court further observed that from the pleadings and evidence of both parties, it is clear that the applicant is currently not engaged in any work and has no source of income. The applicant, Smt. Mamta Sahu (applicant 6 No.1), is residing with her minor daughter, Ku. Soumya Sahu (applicant No.2), at her parental home, and the respondent has made no arrangements for their maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicants are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil