1 2026:CGHC:7126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1162 of 2024 Chandrakant Sahu S/o Khemlal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Gadadih, P.S Utai Tahsil- Patan District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Chandrakant Sahu Aged About 36 Years Present Through Hemlal Sahu, Resident Of Nagar Panchayat Aamdi District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-a-side the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, (CG) in Criminal MJC No. 1365/2023 (ANNEXURE A-1), in the interest 2 of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded spouses whose marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2002 at Village Kohka Kurud, Tahsil and District Durg, and out of the wedlock two sons, namely Om Sahu (born on 17.11.2004) and Jay Sahu (born on 14.11.2007), were born, it was alleged by the respondent before the trial Court that after a few months of marriage the conduct of the applicant became cruel and he, under the influence of liquor, used to abuse, assault and ill-treat her, and that during his posting at Village Dumardih, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, he again assaulted her and demanded dowry, and further during the Covid-19 period in the year 2021, while posted at Primary School Kanakot, he squandered his salary on liquor and neglected to maintain the family, and ultimately on 21.10.2023 she was driven out of the matrimonial home and compelled to reside at her parental house, whereafter she lodged a written complaint at Police Station Durg but no action was taken, it was further alleged that the applicant is in government service earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month, and accordingly on 20.11.2023 the respondent instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month along with an application for interim maintenance. The applicant appeared and filed reply on 09.02.2024 denying the allegations, contending that the respondent herself refused to cohabit, disputing his alleged income, asserting that the respondent is skilled in sewing and knitting and earns about Rs. 3 15,000–20,000/- per month, and further alleging illicit relations on her part and pendency of divorce proceedings, however, upon hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the learned trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the interim application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in granting maintenance to the respondent despite the fact that the respondent had refused to reside with and accompany the applicant, thereby disentitling herself from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the documents annexed with the present revision clearly demonstrate that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance and that, after a lapse of about 21 years, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and developed an illicit relationship with another person, which amounts to mental cruelty against the applicant. The learned counsel further submits that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed with an ulterior motive only to harass the applicant and to obtain pecuniary advantage by misusing the beneficial provisions of Chapter IX of the Code. It is also argued that the respondent’s conduct, including the alleged adulterous relationship supported by 4 chats and photographs placed on record, has caused severe mental pain, injury to the health, honour, and reputation of the applicant, and has compelled him to institute divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and adultery. It is further submitted that the written arguments and unrebutted evidence produced by the applicant were grossly ignored by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order, thereby rendering the order unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, submissions of the parties, and the material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has taken note of the marital relationship between the parties, the allegations of cruelty, neglect, and refusal to maintain made by the respondent, as well as the prima facie financial capacity of the applicant, who is in government service, and has judiciously exercised its discretion in granting a reasonable 5 amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order reflects proper application of mind, is based on the material placed on record, and advances the object of social justice underlying the provision of maintenance. 7. Considering the submission 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan