1 2025:CGHC:52204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1279 of 2025 Anil Sahu S/o Shri Sadhuram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o 53, 845, Main Road, Gautam Nagar, Water Tank Road, Lakhenagar, Police Statoin Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rohini Sahu @ Rani W/o Shri Anil Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Ramnagar, Boring Chowk, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Minor Bhuvik Sahu D/o Shri Anil Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian (Mother) Smt. Rohini Sahu @ Rani Aged About 27 Years W/o Shri Anil Sahu R/o Ramnagar, Boring Chowk, Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.28 15:37:12 +0530 2 “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) (Presided over by Shri Sudhir kumar) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 275/2025 “Rohini Sahu Vs. Anil Sahu”, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 18.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Ramnagar, Boring Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. It is alleged that, on account of ill-treatment and mental cruelty meted out by the applicant and his parents, respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. The respondent No. 1 9led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, claiming a total maintenance amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month. The application was based on the ground that the applicant is running a motor mechanic shop and earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month. 5. The applicant 9led his reply to the said application and contended that respondent No. 1 had left his house of her own free will and is residing at her parental home without any justi9able reason. It was further contended that the applicant is not earning a handsome income but is working as a labourer, earning only enough to maintain his family. The applicant denied all the allegations made by the respondent No. 1. 6. Learned Family Court, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both parties, passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2025, partly allowing the application of the respondents and granting interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month (Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No. 3 1 and Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No. 2). 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is a person with a very low income and is somehow managing to maintain his aged parents. He also submits that the interim maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of the respondents is on the higher side, considering the 9nancial condition of the applicant. He furthers submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record, has arbitrarily allowed the application of the respondents, which is illegal and unsustainable in law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 11. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek