1 2026:CGHC:7328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 220 of 2026 Reshamhlal Sahu S/o Sunderlal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Reda, Ward No. 13, Tehsil- Dabhra, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Forest Department, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Jyoti Sahu W/o Reshamlal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Dependant, , R/o Gram Reda, Tehsil- Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Rengalpali Road, Kashiram Nagar, Ward No. 33, Raigarh, Tehsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Priyanshu Sahu (Minor) S/o Rameshlal Sahu Aged About 11 Years Occupation- Student, Through Legal Guardian- Mother Jyoti Sahu, W/o Reshamlal Sahu, R/o Gram Reda, Tehsil- Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Rengalpali Road, Kashiram Nagar, Ward No. 33, Raigarh, Tehsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.F- 30/2024, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.11 12:39:10 +0530 2 CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 per month. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 20/2024. In their application, the respondents stated that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 31.03.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs at Raigarh (C.G.). After marriage, respondent No. 1 resided with the applicant at Village Reda, Tehsil Dabhra, District Sakti (C.G.). From the wedlock, respondent No. 2 (minor son, Priyanshu) was born on 30.07.2014. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, customary household articles were given by Respondent No. 1’s parents. Thereafter, the applicant and his parents allegedly demanded a motorcycle as dowry and subjected respondent No. 1 to harassment, abuse, and physical assault, even during her pregnancy. It was further alleged that on 11.01.2017, the applicant shifted the respondents to a rented house in Saraibhaddar, Raigarh, where he continued to harass and assault Respondent No. 1 over dowry demands. On 26.02.2022, he allegedly took her to Village Reda and left her there. On 09.08.2022, he allegedly assaulted the respondents and drove them out of the house. Since then, the respondents have been residing at Kashiram Nagar, Raigarh, dependent on her parents, and the applicant has neglected to maintain them. 3. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations. He stated that no dowry was demanded and that he was previously employed as a private operator in the Forest Department but is presently unemployed and has no agricultural land or substantial income. He expressed willingness to 3 keep his wife and child with him. He further alleged that Respondent No. 1 is deliberately refusing to reside with him in the village and is making false allegations to harass him. He also approached the District Justice Cell, District Sahu Sangh, Raigarh, and the Superintendent of Police seeking resolution of the matrimonial dispute. Community meetings were convened on 17.12.2023 and 31.01.2024, but respondent No. 1 remained absent. A meeting was finally held on 11.04.2024, where she stated that she was unwilling to reside with the applicant. The matter was closed without resolution, granting liberty to both parties to seek legal remedies. Similar efforts at the Family Counseling Center also failed, as Respondent No. 1 declined to cohabit with the applicant. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court held that respondent No. 1 was residing separately without justifiable cause and declined maintenance to her. However, considering that respondent No. 2 is a minor child, the Court awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to him. The Family Court partly allowed the application despite the applicant’s contention that he is unemployed and willing to maintain both respondents if they reside with him. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is presently unemployed, has no fixed source of income, owns no agricultural land, and is not financially capable of paying the maintenance amount as directed. The finding regarding the applicant’s earning capacity is based on assumptions and presumptions and is not supported by any cogent evidence. The learned Family Court did not properly consider that the petitioner has consistently expressed his willingness to keep respondent 4 No. 1 (wife) and respondent No. 2 (minor child) with him and to maintain them. The Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient and reasonable cause and has refused to cohabit with the petitioner despite repeated efforts at reconciliation. The learned Family Court did not properly consider the material on record showing that several community meetings and counseling sessions were conducted, during which respondent No. 1 clearly refused to reside with the applicant. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, and therefore deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti