1 2025:CGHC:47295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 488 of 2020 Toran Sahu S/o Shankarlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Changorabhata Shri Ram Nagar, Near Gitti Khadan, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Toran Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Changorabhata Raipur, District Raipur, Present Address Village - Bendra, Tahsil Kurud, Police Station Bakhara, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate.. For Respondent : Mr. Shatruhan Singh Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shatruhan Singh Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 3led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the courts below as well as Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.16 18:21:23 +0530 2 impugned order dated 17.12.2019, passed in MJC No. 17/2018, by the Learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.), Any other relief/s which the Hon'ble Court deems 1t in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent 3led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance against the applicant before the Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.), stating that on 16.04.2017 the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rituals at Village Bendra. It is further contended that the applicant works as a Data Entry Operator in an auto-parts shop at Changorabhatha, Raipur (C.G.), and after the marriage he took the respondent there, where they both started residing together. It is further alleged that the applicant has illicit relations with one woman namely, Shobha Sahu, and that he started torturing the respondent as her family members had not provided su>cient dowry at the time of marriage. According to the respondent, the applicant has been continuously violent towards her during the course of their marriage. On a regular basis, the applicant used to return home in a drunken state, create quarrels over dowry, and throw her out of the house in the middle of the night, asking her to return only on the condition that she brings Rs. 50,000/- from her paternal home. Due to the cruelty meted out by the applicant, on 29.01.2017 the respondent’s father took her to his house at Village Bendra, where she has been residing ever since. Consequently, she 3led the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was vaguely and ambiguously pleaded by the respondent that the applicant is a man of su>cient means and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month by working as a Data 3 Entry Operator in an Auto-Parts Shop at Raipur (C.G.), without producing any proof, either documentary or oral, in support of such earnings. She prayed for Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance per month. 4. The present applicant denied all the averments of the respondent’s application and further pleaded that the respondent herself is residing separately without any reasonable cause. Her erratic behaviour started just a few days after marriage when she began quarrelling with the applicant’s family members over trivial matters and frequently threatened to leave for her paternal home. 5. Learned Family Court, however, allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and, by order dated 17.12.2019 passed in MJC No. 17/2018, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the interim application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned trial court passed the impugned ex parte order without permitting cross-examination of the witnesses and by considering only the statements 3led under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. He submits that the respondent did not adduce any evidence to substantiate her vague and unproved claim that the applicant earns Rs. 20,000/- per month as a Data Entry Operator in an auto-parts shop at Raipur (C.G.). He also submits that learned Family Court incorrectly recorded 3ndings that since the applicant is allegedly having a second wife, the respondent is entitled to maintenance. There are no pleadings regarding the alleged second marriage of the applicant in the application 3led by the respondent, yet the learned Family Court gave an erroneous 3nding on the basis of false a>davits produced by the 4 respondent. He also submits that the statements made by the respondent’s witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC are word-for-word copies of each other and therefore cannot be considered credible evidence. Learned Family Court failed to consider the liabilities of the applicant, particularly that his aged parents are also dependent upon him. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek