1 2025:CGHC:51663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1259 of 2025 Chabilal Sahu S/o Sitaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhothidih, Tahsil And P.S. Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Now Distt. Sakti) ... applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Purnima Sahu W/o Chabilal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhothidih, Tahsil And P.S. Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Now Distt. Sakti), Presently Residing At Village Aandil, Post Aurda, P.S. And Tehsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Now Distt. Sakti) 2 - Khileshwar S/o Chabilal Sahu Aged About 3 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Purnima Sahu, R/o Village Bhothidih, Tahsil And P.S. Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Now Distt. Sakti), Presently Residing At Village Aandil, Post Aurda, P.S. And Tehsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. (Now Distt. Sakti) ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.2 of 2025, which is an application under Section 5 of the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the instant revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.2 of 2025 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. The criminal revision is heard finally. 4. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by learned Family Court (Link Court), Sakti, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.28/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each to the respondents towards maintenance. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No. 1 was solemnized with the applicant on 21.04.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock one child, namely Respondent No. 2, was born, who is presently about 3 years old and residing with her mother at her parental house. It is further submitted that a settlement was also arrived at between the applicant and respondent No. 1 at the Family Settlement Centre. After the marriage, the applicant started subjecting respondent No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty and demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry, and further questioned her character, due to which she was sent back to her parental 3 home. Thereafter, on a complaint made by respondent No. 1, the matter was referred to the Family Settlement Centre, where the applicant refused to cohabit with her. Since respondent No. 1 had no source of income, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant filed his reply denying all the allegations and contended that he had never demanded dowry and that respondent No. 1 herself had left the matrimonial house. It was also submitted that the applicant went to bring back respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but she refused to return and instead sought divorce. Subsequently, a social meeting was held wherein the applicant paid Rs.1,60,000/- to respondent No. 1 as permanent alimony, but she did not disclose that she had also filed a domestic violence case before the Malkharoda Court. It is further stated that the applicant is a labourer and that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not residing with him without any justifiable cause, and therefore the application filed by her was without merit and liable to be rejected. However, the learned court below, after hearing both the parties and perusing the records and evidence, allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs.1,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 towards maintenance, totalling Rs.2,000/- per month. Hence, the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has erred in holding that the respondents are entitled to maintenance despite residing separately from the applicant 4 without any sufficient cause. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. The applicant is a poor labourer with no other source of income and also has the responsibility of maintaining his parents. He had already paid Rs.1,60,000/- to respondent No. 1 as permanent alimony in a social meeting and mortgaged 0.50 acres of agricultural land in her favour. It is further submitted that an agreement dated 09.01.2022 was executed between the parties, wherein both mutually agreed to live separately. Hence, the applicant is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance amount regularly. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month each to the respondents towards maintenance after considering the pleadings, evidence, and documents produced by both parties, it is established that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are legally wedded spouses and respondent No. 2 is their legitimate child. Both parties had mutually agreed to live separately in a social meeting held on 09.01.2022, wherein the applicant also agreed to pay monthly maintenance. Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion 5 that the respondents are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil