1 2025:CGHC:32645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 273 of 2020 Prashant Sahu S/o Late Keshav Prasad Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Balgangadhar Tilak, Ward No. 10, Pahadipara, Near Sai Mandir, In Front Of Karmkar Jeweler, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Sarita Sahu W/o Prashant Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Vijay Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhavya Sahu (Minor) S/o Prashant Sahu, Aged About 06 Months Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Sahu, R/o Vijay Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:51:20 +0530 2 “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 28.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) presided by Shri S.K. Singh, in Criminal M.J.C. No. 487/2017 or may be reduced the maintenance amount, in the interest of justice. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the them. It was stated that the applicant solemnized marriage with respondent No. 1 on 01.05.2014, and out of the said wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. After the marriage, the applicant and his family members misbehaved with respondent No. 1 and subjected her to harassment and torture. It was further stated that the applicant and his family members demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- from respondent No. 1 on account of insufficient dowry, and her brother gave a motorcycle to the applicant’s family. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint against the applicant at the Mahila Police Station. Subsequently, a compromise was entered into between the applicant and the respondent by executing an agreement on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- to settle the dispute. However, despite the compromise, the applicant continued to misbehave with respondent No. 1. It was further stated that the applicant has no source of income and is working as a Sales Officer at Ishika Finance Company, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 3 Hence, the application was filed seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After issuing notice to the applicant, the applicant filed a reply denying all the averments pleaded in the application. 5. After framing the issues and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 28.07.2018, whereby it allowed the application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The respondent No. 01, on her own, left the house of the applicant, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim the benefit of maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is engaged in private employment with a low income, but has ignored this fact while passing the impugned order; hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The respondents have failed to prove the income of the applicant; therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- awarded is liable to be set aside. The maintenance amount awarded is on the higher side and is liable to be modified. He also submits that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order in the absence of the applicant, which has resulted in grave prejudice to him; hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The applicant is engaged in low-paid private work and is residing 4 with his parents, who are dependent upon him; hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Considering the entire factual matrix and the applicable law, the order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek