1 2025:CGHC:56601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 114 of 2022 1 - Smt. Meera Sahu W/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pampapur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Kalyanpur, Police Station - Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District Surjapur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ankit Sahu S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 8 Years R/o Village Pampapur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Kalyanpur, Police Station - Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District Surjapur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Ramjan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Pampapur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil - Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.80/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to applicant No.2 (child), towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that, it is an admitted fact that the applicant No.1 and the respondent are legally wedded spouses and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Surajpur. It was submitted that after marriage, applicant No.1 joined the company of the respondent, but from the very beginning she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members. Despite continuous harassment, applicant No.1 continued to reside in her matrimonial home with the hope that their behaviour would improve, but the conduct of the respondent remained unchanged. The respondent is alleged to be addicted to liquor and frequently assaulted applicant No.1. Even after the birth of two children, he continued to beat and expel her from the matrimonial house. Several social/panchayat meetings were 3 convened, in which the respondent assured proper behaviour, but failed to abide by his assurances. On 13.06.2021, the respondent allegedly snatched one child and ousted the applicants from the house, due to which they began residing in the parental home of applicant No.1. Again, on 16.06.2021, when applicant No.1 was taken back to the matrimonial home by her father, the respondent allegedly assaulted her for not bringing a motorcycle and once again expelled her from the house, compelling her to lodge a complaint at Police Station Surajpur. Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income. It was submitted that the respondent is running a welding shop and earns approximately Rs.40,000/- per month, in addition to earnings of around Rs.80,000/- per month from agricultural land, tractor, and pickup vehicle. Despite having sufficient means, he is not providing any maintenance to the applicants. Thereafter, the respondent filed reply denying all allegations and claimed that applicant No.1 is living separately without any reasonable cause and that she is capable of maintaining herself, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. 3. After considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 22.12.2021, granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 (child), but rejected the claim of applicant No.1 holding that she is living separately without sufficient cause. Being Aggrieved by the rejection of maintenance to applicant No.1, the present revision has been preferred. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 is bad in law, perverse and arbitrary, as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The finding that applicant No.1 is living separately without reasonable cause is erroneous, especially when the material clearly shows that she was subjected to continuous cruelty, assaults and was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home. The Family Court further overlooked the fact that applicant No.1 is a legally wedded wife with no independent source of income and is therefore entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Court also failed to consider the sufficient means of the respondent, who is running a welding shop earning around Rs.40,000 per month, besides substantial income from agricultural land, tractor and pickup vehicle. Despite having adequate means, he has made no effort to maintain or even take back applicant No.1. The maintenance granted to applicant No.2 is also inadequate in the present economic scenario and requires enhancement. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and maintenance be awarded to applicant No.1 along with enhancement of maintenance for applicant No.2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 5 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 parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court upon evaluating the evidence on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to applicant No.2 (child), towards maintenance observing that the applicant No.1 failed to establish any sufficient or reasonable cause for residing separately from the respondent and therefore was not entitled to claim maintenance. However, the Court observed that applicant No.2 is the minor child of the respondent, living separately and not being maintained by him, considering the respondent’s earning capacity from his welding shop and other sources, the Family Court came to the conclusion that applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 6 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil