1 2025:CGHC:57334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1237 of 2022 Awadhesh Sahu S/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kunwa Malgi, Chowki Damapur, Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Urvashi Sahu W/o Awadhesh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Baghul, Police Station And Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 23-11-2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/wife 昀椀led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the allegation that the applicant/husband and his family members had subjected her to mental and physical harassment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. Despite claiming dependency, the wife admitted in her cross-examination that she had completed nursing training, worked as a nurse under a physician, and also provided nursing services in nearby villages when required. She further alleged that the husband possessed su昀케cient means, though she herself acknowledged that 90 decimals of agricultural land stood in the husband’s name and 11 acres in the name of his father, while the evidence of witnesses Shrawan Sahu and Baldau Sahu established that the husband had no independent income and was dependent on his parents as a member of a joint Hindu family. It also came on record that the wife had lodged criminal complaints, including allegations of gang rape, against the husband and his family members. However, without properly appreciating the defence and evidence produced by the husband, the learned Family Court, by order dated 23.11.2022, accepted the wife’s version and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, along with Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses, while adjusting the interim maintenance already deposited. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, as the learned Family Court failed to 3 appreciate that the respondent/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on the instructions of her father without any su昀케cient cause, a fact admitted in her own pleadings. It is contended that the wife produced no documentary proof or police report to substantiate her allegations of harassment, and that her own witnesses, in cross-examination, admitted that she had come for Teeja, that villagers and even the applicant had approached to take her back, and that she had refused to join him or abide by the Panchayat’s decision, leading to her social boycott. It is further urged that the evidence also revealed that the wife had lodged false reports and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a dutiful spouse, whereas the applicant had, in fact, lodged complaints against her assaultive behaviour before the Police Chowki Damapur and Police Station Navagarh on 25.04.2020 and 30.08.2020. Despite these material admissions and the absence of proof regarding the applicant’s income, the learned Family Court arbitrarily fastened a maintenance liability of Rs.4,000/- upon the applicant, rendering the order unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court committed no error in allowing the wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directing payment of maintenance. The Family Court rightly held that the respondent/wife had su昀케ciently established that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment in her matrimonial home and was thereby compelled to reside separately, which constitutes a just and reasonable cause for living apart. The Court further observed that the husband failed to substantiate his plea of having no independent income, particularly in view of the admitted existence of agricultural land in his name and in the name of his family, as well as the absence of any credible evidence to rebut the wife’s allegations of neglect and refusal. The learned Court was also justi昀椀ed in holding that the wife’s occasional nursing work did not amount to a stable or adequate source of livelihood so as to disentitle her to maintenance. In these circumstances, the direction to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- along with Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses, after adjusting interim maintenance, is found to be proper, reasonable, and in accordance with the object and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan