1 2025:CGHC:42990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 190 of 2023 Dauram Sahu S/o Mantheer Sahu Aged About 26 Years Occupation - Labor And Kashtkar, R/o Village - Bhedni, Police Station - Bemetara, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sangeeta W/o Dauram Sahu Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Nothing, R/o Village - Bhedni Police Station Bemetara, Tahsil - Berla District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) Present Address - Village Bhawnrda, Police Station Dadi, Tehsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Devika D/o Dauram Sahu Age About Two And Half Year, Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Sangeeta W/o Dauram Sahu R/o Village - Bhedni Police Station Bemetara, Tahsil - Berla District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) Present Address - Village Bhawnrda, Police Station Dadi, Tehsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Diwanshi D/o Dauram Sahu Aged About 1 Years Age About One Year, Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Sangeeta W/o Dauram Sahu R/o Village - Bhedni Police Station Bemetara, Tahsil - Berla District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) Present Address - Village Bhawnrda, Police Station Dadi, Tehsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.294/2022, 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 to each of the respondents ie. total Rs.3,000/- per month, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Bemetara, District–Bemetara seeking grant of maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month, pleading inter alia that their marriage was solemnized on 22.07.2019 at Village Bhauranda, District–Bemetara as per Hindu customs and rituals, and after residing together for some time, the applicant allegedly subjected the respondent-wife to cruelty, due to which she went to her parental house and consequently filed the said application. It is respectfully submitted that both the applicant and respondent No.1 belong to the Hindu community and their marriage was duly performed according to Hindu rites. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Family Court 3 framed the issues and partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding the respondent-wife entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the applicant. However, the respondent-wife, without any sufficient cause, refused to reside with the applicant-husband, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance, particularly when the applicant has no independent source of income. The applicant, in his reply before the learned Family Court, specifically pleaded that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and denied the averments made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C,. Further, in his evidence also, the applicant has categorically stated that the respondent, without any sufficient reason, refused to live with him and that he has no source of income, and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has granted monthly maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, bad in law, and suffers from both factual and legal infirmities. The Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts, evidence, and documents brought on record by the applicant, and has thus committed a grave error in passing the impugned order. The case of the applicant has not been duly considered, and the order is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. The 4 respondent, having refused to live with the applicant without sufficient cause, has no right to claim maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves 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 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 to each of the respondents ie. total Rs.3,000/- per month, towards maintenance observing that It is an admitted fact that the applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife, and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born from their wedlock. Furthermore, from the evidence and circumstances, it is established that the respondent No.1- wife, being unable to maintain herself and her two minor daughters due to their tender age, are entitled to maintenance. The applicant, though engaged in daily wage labour, is capable of earning and maintaining his family. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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 5 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil