1 2025:CGHC:58612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1454 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sanyukta W/o Shri Hemant Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Basti Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Kaushik Sahu S/o Hemant Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sanyukta W/o Shri Hemant Sahu (Applicant No. 1) R/o Basti Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Gitesh Sahu S/o Hemant Sahu Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sanyukta W/o Shri Hemant Sahu (Applicant No. 1) R/o Basti Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Hemant Sahu S/o Panchanan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Post Toresiha Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court, Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.26/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.3, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants, who are the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. It is an admitted fact that applicant No.1 and the respondent were married on 24.03.2005 at Village Basti Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and three children were born from the marriage, Karishma Sahu, Kaushik Sahu, and Gitesh Sahu. While the daughter resides with the father, the two sons reside with applicant No.1. According to the applicants, after marriage the husband and in-laws regularly quarreled with applicant No.1 over dowry demands, and due to continuous harassment she even consumed poison in November 2009 and lodged a report, after which the husband took her back on compromise. Thereafter, she stayed at her parental home for three years, later 3 returned to the matrimonial house, and the second son was born, but again her mother-in-law doubted her character, forcing her to return to her parental home. Since then, the husband neither contacted her nor provided any financial support, despite owning 6 acres of agricultural land and being capable of maintaining them. Applicant No.1, having no independent income, sought Rs.26,000/- per month for herself and the two children. The respondent denied all allegations and accused Applicant No.1 of having an extramarital affair, claiming she left the house of her own will. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court, by order dated 22.08.2025, partly allowed the application by rejecting the wife’s claim for maintenance and granting only a meagre amount to the children, leading to the filing of this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 is illegal, passed without proper application of mind, and contrary to the object and purpose of Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicants, being the legally wedded wife and children of the non- applicant are entitled to proper maintenance, and the summary nature of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC required a more just and liberal approach. He further submits that the Family Court ignored the fact that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is surviving solely on the maintenance awarded, which is grossly inadequate. The husband made baseless allegations of extra-marital relationship against the wife only to 4 evade his legal responsibility, and he could not prove any such allegations. The wife, on the other hand, had clearly stated that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to dowry harassment and false accusations, which are sufficient reasons for her to reside separately. He also submits that the Family Court erred in granting only a meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- towards maintenance of the children, which is wholly insufficient considering the prevailing cost of living. Therefore, the order is unjust, unreasonable, and liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.3 towards maintenance, observing that the applicant-wife failed to show any sufficient and reasonable cause to reside separately and therefore was not entitled to maintenance, whereas the two minor children, having no independent source of income, are entitled to be maintained by their father. Considering the financial capacity of the respondent and the needs of the children, the Family Court awarded a total of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the children, payable from the date of the application. 5 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil