1 2026:CGHC:7380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 444 of 2024 1. Smt. Saraswati Sahu W/o Maheshwar Sahu @ Annu Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Laluram Colony, Opposite Maharana Pratap I.T.I. College, Korba, Post, Tah. And Dist. Korba, C.G. Pincode 495677. 2. Minor Tishir Sahu Maheshwar Sahu @ Annu Sahu Aged About 16 Years Through his Natural Guardian Mother Applicant No. 01 Smt. Saraswati Sahu, R/o Laluram Colony, Opposite Maharana Pratap I.T.I. College, Korba, Post, Tah. And Dist. Korba, C.G. Pincode 495677. 3. Minor Harshal Sahu Maheshwar Sahu @ Annu Sahu Aged About 12 Years Through his Natural Guardian Mother Applicant No. 01 Smt. Saraswati Sahu, R/o Laluram Colony, Opposite Maharana Pratap I.T.I. College, Korba, Post, Tah. And Dist. Korba, C.G. Pincode 495677. ... Applicants versus Maheshwar @ Annu Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gandhi Chowk, Opposite Satish Jaiswal Kirana Store, P.S. City Kotwali, Post, Tah. And Dist. Korba, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:32 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the remaining maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.01.2007 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2 was born in the year 2008 and applicant No.3 was born in the year 2012. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating that until the year 2010, the relationship between applicant No.1 and the respondent was cordial. However, in the year 2010, a tenant namely Pushpa Shriwas came to reside in the respondent’s house, and thereafter the respondent developed an extra-marital relationship with her. Applicant No.1 objected to the said relationship, but the respondent did not discontinue the same and instead started residing separately with Pushpa Shriwas, thereby deserting applicant No.1. It was further stated that the respondent is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of old vehicles and was paying only Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.1, which was wholly insufÏcient for the livelihood of the applicants. Hence, the applicants sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, considering the income of the respondent and the growing needs and expenses of applicant Nos.2 and 3. 4. After service of notice, the respondent appeared before the learned trial Court and filed his reply, wherein he admitted the marriage and birth of the children. However, he made false counter-allegations against applicant No.1 alleging an extra-marital relationship with one Sanjay Jha, 3 and contended that payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month was sufÏcient maintenance, and therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. 5. Upon consideration of the application, the learned Family Court, Korba, District Korba, vide order dated 02.08.2019, awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month each to applicant Nos.2 and 3, totaling Rs. 7,000/- per month. 6. After passing of the maintenance order, the respondent initially paid the maintenance amount. However, in April 2021, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent stopped paying maintenance, stating that his business had completely shut down and sought time for payment. Applicant No.1, being the wife, and applicant Nos.2 and 3, being minor children, understood the respondent’s difÏculty and did not press for immediate payment. 7. After the subsiding of the COVID-19 pandemic, the applicants demanded payment of the maintenance amount. At that time, the respondent repeatedly assured that he would clear the entire arrears within a few months; however, he failed to do so. Consequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on 01.10.2022 for recovery of maintenance arrears for the period April 2021 to September 2022 (18 months), amounting to Rs. 1,26,000/-. The learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent and directed payment of the arrears. 8. Vide order dated 07.02.2023, the learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay the remaining amount in five installments. However, vide the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the learned Family Court closed the proceedings holding that, as per Section 125 Cr.P.C., dependents can recover arrears only for the preceding one year, and since the application was filed on 01.10.2022, the applicants were 4 entitled to recover maintenance only from October 2021 to September 2022, and not for the period April 2021 to September 2021. 9. The learned Family Court, while partly allowing the application for recovery of maintenance, committed a grave error by ignoring the fact that the applicants could not approach the Court in April 2021 due to the nationwide spread of COVID-19, during which period the Courts were either closed or functioning in a restricted manner. Further, the respondent himself sought time to pay the maintenance amount, and considering his assurances and financial difÏculty, the applicants did not initiate coercive proceedings earlier. The respondent was fully aware of the arrears and never raised any objection regarding recovery beyond one year. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, improper, and contrary to settled principles of law. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, is illegal, improper, and not sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent that it denies payment of arrears for the period from April 2021 to September 2021. He submits that learned Family Court erred in ignoring the fact that the applicants could not approach the Court due to the non-functioning of courts during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Learned Family Court had earlier directed the respondent to pay the maintenance amount, and in compliance thereof, the amount for the period from April 2021 to October 2022 has already been paid. However, as the levy proceedings were still pending, the Court further directed payment of maintenance from October 2022 onwards till final disposal of the case. Learned Family Court erred in failing to consider that the applicants did not pressurize the respondent for payment, as he had sought time to clear the maintenance dues. He also submits that learned Family Court further erred in ignoring 5 the fact that the respondent was repeatedly assuring payment of the maintenance amount, and therefore the applicants did not immediately file an application for issuance of a levy warrant. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was fully aware of the outstanding dues and did not raise any objection regarding payment of arrears exceeding one year. The learned Family Court adopted a hyper- technical approach while deciding the application of the applicants, instead of adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 12. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, passed the order dated 15.03.2024. The Court noted that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of maintenance for a period of 18 months from April 2021 to September 2022 at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month, amounting to Rs. 1,26,000/-. 13. The Court further observed that the Applicant was legally entitled to recover maintenance only for the 12 months preceding the date of filing of the application. Since the application was filed on 01.10.2022, the relevant period was from October 2021 to September 2022. Additionally, the Court calculated maintenance up to March 2024, making the total period from October 2021 to March 2024 i.e., 30 months. At the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month, the total amount payable worked out to Rs. 2,10,000/-. Out of the said amount, the respondent deposited Rs. 33,000/- in the Applicant’s bank account on 14.02.2024 and further paid Rs. 1,72,000/- before the Court, totaling Rs. 2,05,000/-. The remaining 6 balance of Rs. 5,000/- has also been paid, for which a receipt may be obtained. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 14. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek