1 2025:CGHC:34084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 195 of 2022 Mahadev S/o Shri Bharat Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Police Station- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus 1. Maheshwari Sahu W/o Mahadev Sahu Aged About 23 Years C/o Baburam S/o Bhaiyaram Sahu, Present R/o Village- Bilai, Post- Pendratarai, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 2. Yash Kumar S/o Mahadev Sahu Aged About One And Half Month, Through His Natural Guardian I.E., Mother Namely Maheshwari Sahu W/o Mahadev Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, C/o Baburam S/o Bhaiyaram Sahu, Present R/o Village- Bilai, Post- Pendratarai, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C No.137/2021, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.18 18:45:27 +0530 2 before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed and applicant has directed to pay amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/son till he attains adulthood, which will be received by respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 03.052020, according to Hindu rites. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month. They alleged that the applicant and his family members subjected respondent No. 1 to physical abuse and harassment, accusing her of practicing witchcraft. The respondents claimed that the applicant earns Rs. 25,000 per month from his 5 acres of agricultural land and other sources, while they have no income. The applicant denied these allegations, stating that the respondents are living separately without reason and are not entitled to maintenance. However, the Family Court, without properly considering the applicant's contentions, partly allowed the maintenance application on 04.01.2022. The Court awarded Rs. 2,500 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,500 per month to respondent No. 2. The applicant challenges this order, arguing that it is unjust, unreasonable, and based on conjecture. The key issue is whether the Family Court's order is sustainable given the alleged lack of proper consideration of the applicant's defenses. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant challenges the Family Court's order, arguing that it is erroneous, unjust, and unreasonable. The Family Court believed the respondents'version without assigning reasons, ignoring the applicant's contentions. The 3 Family Court wrongly concluded that respondent No. 1 had sufficient reason to reside separately. The Family Court relied on respondent No. 1's uncorroborated testimony regarding ill-treatment and the community meeting (Samajik Panchayat). The learned Family Court erred in holding that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and entitled to maintenance. The Family Court arbitrarily determined the applicant's income without evidence.The awarded maintenance amount is excessive, considering the applicant's income and responsibilities.The applicant seeks to quash/set aside the order due to these reasons. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that there is sufficient reason for the respondent No.1/wife to stay away from the applicant. Further, considering the income of the applicant and the minimum requirement of maintenance in the present circumstances, it is justified to provide maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1500/- to respondent No.2 till he attains adulthood (totaling Rs. 4000/-) per month .As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. 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