1 2026:CGHC:14402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 26 of 2025 Madho Prasad Sahu S/o Jilal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kohraud Lavan P.S. Kasdol Distt. Baloda - Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1. Gettanajali Sahu W/o Madho Prasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Sant Ram Sahu Housing Q.No. 972 Sector 6 Housing Board Saddu Colony P.S. Vidhansabha, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2. Kumari Aditi Sahu D/o Madho Prasad Sahu Aged About 4 Years (Since Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Gettanjali Sahu). --- R/o C/o Sant Ram Sahu Housing Q.No. 972 Sector 6 Housing Board Saddu Colony P.S. Vidhansabha, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicants : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) in M.C.C No.55/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has party allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the non-applicants and granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.03.28 15:54:41 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between non-applicant No. 1 and the present applicant was solemnized on 18.05.2014 at Kasdol, District - Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). Out of the said wedlock, a female child, namely Kumari Aditi Sahu (non- applicant No. 2), was born on 24.11.2016. It was further alleged that within 10–15 days of the marriage, one lady namely Garima Sen started contacting the applicant through mobile phone. The applicant allegedly admitted that he enjoyed talking to her. Upon objection by non-applicant No. 1, the applicant allegedly subjected her to verbal abuse and physical assault. It was further alleged that even after shifting to Saddu, Raipur, the applicant continued his alleged relationship with the said lady. A social meeting was convened at Village Kohraud, wherein the applicant gave a written assurance that he would not maintain any such relationship and would not misbehave with non-applicant No. 1. However, it was alleged that the applicant did not adhere to his assurance and continued his conduct. On one occasion, when non-applicant No. 1 followed the applicant to verify his claim regarding a competitive examination, she allegedly found him with Garima Sen in the premises of Durga College, Raipur, where he again assaulted her. It was further alleged that non-applicant No. 1 found an admission card of Garima Sen in the applicant’s almirah, wherein the husband’s name was mentioned as Madho Prasad Sahu. Despite the birth of non-applicant No. 2 on 24.11.2016, the applicant allegedly continued to subject non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty. 3. It was further alleged that on 02.06.2018, the applicant forced non-applicant No. 1 to leave for the village, and upon her refusal, he left the house. Subsequently, on 19.09.2018, another social meeting of Tahsil Sahu Sangh, Baloda Bazar, was held wherein the applicant was advised 3 to improve his conduct, but he failed to comply. It was further stated that since June 2018, the non-applicants have been residing at the parental home of non-applicant No. 1 at Saddu, Raipur, and that the applicant has made no arrangement for their maintenance. It was alleged that the applicant earns approximately Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agricultural sources. The non-applicants, having no independent source of income, claimed Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and contended that the application was filed at the instance of the parents of non-applicant No. 1. He denied any illicit relationship with Garima Sen, stating that he merely knew her. He further stated that he is willing to continue the marital relationship and had executed a written assurance in that regard. It was further contended that the allegations are false and that non-applicant No. 1 was unwilling to reside in the village. The applicant stated that he is employed at Durga Career Pvt. Ltd., Devendra Nagar, Raipur, earning Rs.21,500/- per month, out of which he pays Rs.5,000/- as house rent, deposits Rs.1,000/- per month in a Sukanya scheme for his daughter, and pays Rs.4,150/- per month towards loan repayment for a bike and television. He thus prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Family Court, after completion of pleadings, framed three issues and, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., directing the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the non-applicants from 13.01.2020. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant, in his reply, had clearly stated his willingness to reside with the non-applicants and to maintain the 4 matrimonial relationship. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that non-applicant No. 1, in her application, has nowhere stated that she is unwilling to reside with the present applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider that in her complaint lodged at Police Station Pandri Mowa, non-applicant No. 1 had sought intervention for compromise with the intention of preserving the marital relationship. The learned Family Court overlooked the statement of non-applicant No. 1 in paragraph 14 of her cross-examination, wherein she admitted that despite alleged use of abusive language by the applicant, she continued to reside with him for about four years after marriage. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that non-applicant No. 1 is well-qualified, holding degrees of B.A. and B.Ed., and is capable of earning her livelihood. The learned Family Court failed to consider the admission made by non-applicant No. 1 in paragraph 16 of her cross-examination that half of the amount for the house situated at Village Parsulidih, standing in her name, was paid by the present applicant. The learned Family Court further overlooked the admission of non-applicant No. 1 in paragraph 16 of her cross-examination that the applicant used to deposit money in the name of non-applicant No. 2. The learned Family Court failed to consider the admission in paragraph 17 of the cross-examination of non-applicant No. 1 that she had not made any complaint regarding alleged misbehavior by the applicant. The learned Family Court overlooked the admission in paragraph 18 of the cross-examination of non-applicant No. 1 that the applicant did not ask her to leave the matrimonial home and that she had left the house on her own accord. The learned Family Court further failed to consider the admission in paragraph 18 of the cross-examination that no complaint regarding dowry demand was made by non-applicant No. 1. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that non-applicant No. 1/wife is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. While deciding Issue No. 1, it has been held that non-applicant No. 1 is living separately from the applicant for sufficient cause. It is an admitted fact in the case that non-applicant No. 1, Geetanjali Sahu, is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, Madho Prasad, and non-applicant No. 2, Kumari Aditi Sahu, is the daughter of the applicant. The applicant is morally as well as legally bound to maintain his wife and minor daughter. 9. Considering the submissions 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti/Rajshekhar