1 2025:CGHC:40151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 993 of 2023 Rupnarayan Sahu Son Of Budharuram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Ward No.11, Village And Post - Maraud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Sahu Wife Of Rupnarayan Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village - Maraud, Ward No.11, Post - Maraud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Leena Sahu, D/o. Rupnarayan Sahu, Aged About 15 Years Resident Of Village - Maraud, Ward No.11, Post - Maraud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Sunita Sahu, 3 - Ku. Sheetal Sahu, D/o. Rupnarayan Sahu, Aged About 13 Years Resident Of Village - Maraud, Ward No.11, Post - Maraud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Sunita Sahu, 4 - Paras Sahu, Son Of Rupnarayan Sahu, Aged About 5 Years Resident Of Village - Maraud, Ward No.11, Post - Maraud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Sunita Sahu, ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jyoti Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Akhtar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant 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 dated 08.08.2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants 9led an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that the marriage of non-applicant No.1 and applicant was performed on 25.05.2005 according to social rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, the non-applicants No. 2 to 4 have been born. In the year 2010, the non-applicant No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch and while working as Sarpanch, the non- applicant No. 1 was required to met with other persons and villagers, therefore the applicant used to doubt on her character and he used to beat and abuse with the non- applicant No. 1. Thereafter the non-applicant No. 1 was opened choice center, but due to said doubt, the applicant has got transfer the choice centre in the house. In the month of September, 2021 applicant has ousted the non-applicant No. 1, due to which, she is living separately along with her children in a damaged house. The applicant is having su<cient source of income, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of non-applicants, therefore they 9led application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family 3 Court. 4. After served notice, the applicant 9led reply to the application, whereby denied the allegations except the admitted facts and submitted that the applicant has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1, in fact the non-applicant No. 1 is living separately on her own without any reasonable cause. The non-applicant No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Maraud and she is running choice centers at two di>erent places and thereby she is getting su<cient income for maintenance for herself and her children. The non- applicant No. 1 had lodged false and fabricated report against the applicant and his family members for damaging their reputation. The non-applicants are living separately in the house of applicant and they are using the food grains and other household articles of the applicant, therefore the non- applicants are not entitled to get maintenance and their application be rejected. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court concerned vide its order dated 08.08.2023, partly allowed the application 9led by the non-applicants and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 2000/-per month to the non- applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of non-applicants Nos. 2 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.3 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.4 (total Rs. 9000/- per month). Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 9000/- per month in favour of non-applicants, which is on higher side. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the 4 applicant is unemployed person and he has no permanent source of income. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1, in fact the non- applicant No. 1 is living separately on her own without any reasonable cause. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 is running choice centers at two di>erent places and thereby she is getting su<cient income for maintenance of herself and her children. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 has engaged employee for running choice centers, which is clear from the document Article A/1 9led before the learned Family Court further he has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 had lodged false and fabricated report against the applicant and his family members for damaging their reputation and the non-applicants are living separately in the house of applicant and they are using the food grains and other household articles of the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application 5 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 9led by the non-applicants before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application 9led by the non-applicants and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 2000/-per month to the non- applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of non-applicant No. 2 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.3 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.4 (total Rs. 9000/- per month as maintenance). Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the 9ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not 9nd any illegality or in9rmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal