1 2025:CGHC:47288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 823 of 2021 Lalit Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Balaram Sahu, Aged About 29 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Sendri, Sahu Mohalla, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Lata Bai Sahu W/o Lalit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sendri, Sahu Mohalla, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Anju Sahu, D/o Lalit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 2 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Sendri, Sahu Mohalla, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order 23.10.2021, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants 5led an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for grant of maintenance, stating therein that the non-applicant No. 1 is the wife of applicant and non-applicant No. 2 has been born from their wedlock. After marriage, the non-applicant No.1 went to her matrimonial house, but she was harassed and subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, but she was bearing all things with a hope that the behavior of applicant will be changed in future, but the behavior of applicant was not changed and thereafter, he expelled out from his house. It was further submitted by the non- applicants that the non-applicant No. 1 is a lady and she has no source of income, whereas the applicant is running General & edge shop and getting income, in spite of that he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of non-applicants. Due to 5nancial hardship she unable to live their livelihood therefore, she along with her child 5led an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance. 3. After serving notice, the applicant herein 5led reply to the application whereby denied the allegation and submitted that he has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty on account of dowry. In fact, the non-applicant No. 1 is uncontrolled lady and she was having physical relationship with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) and she left the house of applicant and went to the house of her brother- in-law at Village Ramtala. It was further speci5cally submitted by the applicant that the non-applicant No. 1 was not willing to live in joint 3 family and due to pressure of non-applicant No. 1, the applicant used to live separately from his parents, inspite of that the non- applicant No.1 was not living with the applicant property and she always used to quarrel with the applicant in petty matter. The non- applicant No. 1 threatened the applicant to falsely implicate the applicant and his other family members. The non-applicant No. 1 has lodged false report against the applicant before the Police Station, Koni and the concerned Police has arrested the applicant and sent to jail. It was further submitted by the applicant that the applicant is su@ering from ulcer and recently his eye has been operated and the non-applicant No. 1 has deprived the applicant from matrimonial right by saying that the applicant is ailing person. It was further speci5cally submitted by the applicant that the non- applicant No. 1 is living separately without there being any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 23.10.2021, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2/daughter as amount of maintenance (total 3500/-) from the date of passing of the order and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is running a small 4 Kirana shop in a village area and hardly he used to get income of Rs. 100/- per day. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that he has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty on account of dowry and also failed to appreciate that the non- applicant No. 1 is uncontrolled lady and she was having physical relationship with her brother-in-law (Jeeja) and she left the house of applicant and went to the house of her brother-in-law at Village Ramtala. The non-applicant No. 1 was not willing to live in joint family and due to pressure of non-applicant no. 1, the applicant used to live separately from his parents, inspite of that the non- applicant No.1 was not living with the applicant property and she always used to quarrel with the applicant in petty matter. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 threatened the applicant to falsely implicate the applicant and his other family members. The non-applicant No. 1 has lodged false report against the applicant before the Police Station, Koni and the concerned Police has arrested the applicant and sent to jail. Further the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is su@ering from ulcer and recently his eye has been operated and the non-applicant No. 1 has deprived the applicant from matrimonial right by saying that the applicant is ailing person. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately without there being any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. He further submits that learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly 5 income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicants have succeeded in proving their application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non- applicant No.2/daughter (Total 3500/-) as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and 5nding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.3500/- per month to the non-applicants, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OCce is directed to send a certi5ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal