1 2026:CGHC:5570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 336 of 2024 1 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Joratarai, Post Bori, Tehsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Hemin Sahu (Minor) D/o Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 14 Years Through Their Natural Guardian - Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu (Mother), R/o Village Joratarai, Post Bori, Tehsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Hemant Kumar Sahu (Minor) S/o Rupesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 10 Years Through Their Natural Guardian - Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu (Mother), R/o Village Joratarai, Post Bori, Tehsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Tribhuvandas Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Ravidas Ward, Ward No. 18/22, Gram Ravadih, Post Pendi, Tehsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Misc. Cr. Case No.137/2021, may kindly be modified and grant adequate maintenance in favour of all the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of Applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 25.05.2005 according to Hindu rites, and out of the wedlock, Applicant No.2 and Applicant No.3 were born on 06.01.2011 and 21.02.2017 respectively. The petitioners moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., contending that the non-applicant, being addicted to alcohol and influenced by his mother, subjected Applicant No.1 to repeated physical and mental harassment, including dowry demands, resulting in injuries, loss of wages, and neglect of her basic needs. Consequently, Applicant No.1 and her children were compelled to reside at her maternal home, with no independent source of income and no shelter from her father. The non-applicant, a driver operating three goods vehicles earning approximately Rs.90,000/- per month, and also possessing 2.5 acres of irrigated land generating Rs.2,00,000/- annually, along with income as a labor contractor, is fully capable of maintaining the petitioners. The applicants claimed Rs.20,000/- per month for Applicant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each for Applicants No.2 and No.3, totaling Rs.40,000/- 3 per month for maintenance. The non-applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations, citing an accident in March 2019 that rendered him handicapped, and alleged that Applicant No.1 left him to avoid her responsibilities. The Court, passed the impugned order granting a Rs.1,500/- to Applicant No.2 and Rs.1,000/- to Applicant No.3, denying maintenance to Applicant No.1 and ignoring the educational and medical needs of the minor children, thereby necessitating the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court suffers from gross illegality, being contrary to law and the evidence on record. The learned Court erred in failing to consider that the non-applicant has consistently behaved abusively since the marriage, physically and mentally harassing Applicant No.1, and has willfully neglected his legal and moral responsibilities towards the petitioners despite being financially capable. It is further submitted that Applicant No.1 has endured repeated beatings and hardship for 14 years, with her mother bearing the entire cost of living, including household expenses, groceries, electricity, cable bills, and maintenance of household items, while the non-applicant contributed nothing. The Court below also overlooked that Petitioners No.2 and No.3 are minors pursuing education, with substantial fees and medical expenses, which have not been met by the non-applicant, whose income and other sources are substantial. The learned Court further erred in disregarding that the applicants have no support from her parents and are entitled to sufÏcient maintenance under Section 4 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C., and by granting only Rs.2,500/- per month for the minor children, the Court has passed an order that is inadequate, arbitrary, and manifestly unjust, necessitating interference and enhancement of maintenance. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (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 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, well-reasoned, and in accordance with law. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings, evidence, and financial capacities of the parties and rightly exercised judicial discretion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicant’s contentions regarding his alleged accident, reduced physical capacity, and limited income from operating three goods vehicles and agricultural land were appropriately weighed. The Court correctly observed that Applicant No.1 has voluntarily separated from the matrimonial home, and the minor children’s maintenance was granted in a modest amount reflecting the actual financial ability of the non- applicant, ensuring that the order is fair, equitable, and sustainable, without imposing an undue burden on the non-applicant, while still providing for the basic needs of the children. 5 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan