1 2026:CGHC:4435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 26 of 2024 Ajay Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karwa, Post - Latori, P.S. Jay Nagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Gayatri Sahu W/o Ajay Sahu Aged About 25 Years D/o Shri Govind Prasad Sahu, Caste - Teli, R/o Village And Post - Karwa, Tahsil - Latori, P.S. Jay Nagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village And Post Chhinddand, P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aryan S/o Ajay Sahu Aged About 1 Year 2 Months (Minor Through Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Gayati Sahu), Caste - Teli, R/o Village And Post - Karwa, Tahsil - Latori, P.S. Jay Nagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Village And Post Chhinddand, P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2023, which is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2023 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.55/2022, 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.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 55/2022 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the applicant on 28.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born on 02.05.2022. It was further alleged that after some time of 3 marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected respondent No.1 to physical cruelty and demanded money, due to which the respondents are constrained to live separately at her parental home. Thereafter, in response, the applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court denying all the allegations made in the application and contending that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home of her own accord, as she was unwilling to live with the parents of the applicant, and that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed with an ulterior motive to claim maintenance. Vide order dated 22.08.2023, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, which has given rise to the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, as it has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 has already lodged an FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC against the applicant and his family members and has also filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned JMFC, Baikunthpur on 17.06.2022, which clearly indicates multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of the process of law. He 4 also submits the applicant is a poor and rustic villager having no permanent source of income and is merely a labourer, yet the learned Family Court disbelieved the evidence of the applicant. Further, the applicant has shown his bona fide intention to live with respondent No.1 by filing an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Surajpur, but respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home on her own without sufficient cause and is not willing to cohabit, therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that 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.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant and his family members and, therefore, had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately, further respondent No.1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the minor child, and that the applicant is an able-bodied person having sufficient means to maintain the respondents and is legally bound to provide maintenance to them. 5 Therefore, the Family Court has granted maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil