1 2025:CGHC:28149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 136 of 2019 Shiv Prasad Sahu S/o Dhanni Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Harra Road, Nagpur, Police Station- Podi, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anita W/o Shivprasad Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Fulpur, Police Station- Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh, 2 - Rohan Kumar S/o Shivprasad Sahu, Aged About 9 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Sahu, R/o Village- Fulpur, Police Station- Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:27:06 +0530 2 No.51/2018, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants/respondents (wife & son) herein has been allowed and it has been directed that the non-applicant/husband shall pay Rs.3,000/- to his wife/respondent No.1 herein and Rs.3,000/- to his son/ respondent No.2 herein per month as maintenance amount from the month of November, 2018. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, this revision has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant No.1/wife (respondent No.1 herein) had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Baikunthpur, mentioning therein that she was married with the non- applicant (applicant herein) in the year 2007 and out of their wedlock she has given birth to a boy child/applicant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). After marriage, the non-applicant/husband used filthy language and demanded the dowry from his wife and the family members of the non-applicant/husband also misbehaved with her. Thereafter, the wife/respondent no.1 reported the matter to the police of Police Station Podi and in the month of January 2018 stating that the her husband assaulted her and ousted her from the house. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties and after scrutinizing the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court granted the total maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- in favour fo the applicants/respondents (Rs.3000/- each). Hence, this criminal revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the 3 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to see that respondents without any sufficient reason left the house of the applicant/husband and are living separately. Further, the respondents have not proved source of income of the applicant/husband and not filed any documents with relation to the income of the documents, despite of it, impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court, which is based upon presumption surmises, which is liable to be quashed. It is further stated that looking to the financial status of the non-applicant/husband, the amount of maintenance which was passed in favour of the respondents is liable to be reduced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the partiess, perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and the other documents available on record. 7. From perusal of the evidence available on record and further on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant/husband and she is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons and she is not capable of maintaining herself. Further, the applicant/husband has sufficient 4 means of income. He is also physically healthy and the legal responsibility of maintaining the applicants is on him. In this way, it has been proved that the respondents are entitled to receive maintenance allowance from the applicant/husband. Though, the responded No.1/wife did not give details of her requirements with clear evidence and did not present any evidence regarding the expenses, it would be appropriate to determine the maintenance allowance keeping in view the minimum needs of an average person and the social status of both the parties and the income of the applicant. From the above point of view, since the applicant/husband is earning income from driving a vehicle, agriculture and grocery shop, and he has a child of 9 years of age, he is studying in a private school, looking to their expenses, the learned Family Court granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- to respondent No.1/wife, and Rs.3000/- to respondent No.2/son, total amounting to Rs. 6000/- per month which would be payable to them from the month of November, 2018. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti