1 2025:CGHC:40159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 901 of 2023 Rohit Sahu S/o Itwari Ram Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Tarenga Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Soni Sahu W/o Rohit Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Tarenga Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balaudabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Damakheda , Tahsil Simga, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Afroj Khan, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and the order dated 07.07.2023 may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent 4led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Bhatapara, seeking maintenance from the applicant, her husband, asserting that they were married on 30-04-2015 at Village Damakheda as per social customs, and that soon after a brief period of cordial relations, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant, his mother, and other relatives, including assaults during her pregnancies, resulting in two miscarriages, neglect of her medical treatment, and eventual ouster from the matrimonial home. It was alleged that despite the applicant being employed as a Constable in the 11th Battalion, Janjgir- Champa, drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.27,000/-, he failed to provide any 4nancial support, compelling her to reside with her parents and depend entirely upon them for sustenance. The applicant sought Rs.12,000/- per month towards her maintenance and medical needs. The applicant/husband, in reply, denied all allegations of cruelty, attributing the miscarriages to the respondent’s medical condition, contending that he had provided treatment, and asserting that she left the matrimonial home of her own accord without reasonable cause, and that he was already burdened with the maintenance of his aged parents and repayment of a loan. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, having found that the respondent was living separately for justi4able reasons and that the applicant had su>cient means but had neglected to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, aggrieved by which the present revision has been preferred. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has acted with material irregularities in granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent, despite the appellant having produced all relevant documents in his support, thereby rendering the impugned order bad in law and liable to be set aside. The learned court failed to appreciate that although the appellant’s salary is Rs. 28,000/-, he spends more than half of his income towards the maintenance of his aged parents and entire family, apart from repaying EMIs of a personal loan, leaving him with insu>cient means to pay such a high interim maintenance. The Family Court further erred in holding that the appellant subjected the respondent to cruelty, and also committed a grave error in awarding maintenance from the date of 4ling of the application instead of the date of the order. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the interim maintenance awarded is on the higher side and beyond the appellant’s paying capacity, thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon a careful appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, rightly concluded that the respondent/wife had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including ill-treatment during her pregnancies leading to miscarriages, neglect of her medical care, and her eventual ouster from the matrimonial home, thereby establishing that she was living 4 separately for justi4able reasons. The Court further found that the applicant/husband, despite being gainfully employed as a Constable in the 11th Battalion, Janjgir-Champa, earning approximately Rs.27,000/- per month, had failed to provide any 4nancial support to his wife. Considering the applicant’s su>cient means, the respondent’s dependency on her parents for sustenance, and the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate the applicant’s defence, the learned Family Court was fully justi4ed in directing the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, which is reasonable and commensurate with the needs of the respondent and the means of the applicant. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan