1 2026:CGHC:5556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 565 of 2024 Mukesh Sahu S/o Shri Jhaduram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Mira Rice Para Ward No. 02, Nagri, P.S. And Post Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Premin Sahu W/o Mukesh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Jangal Para Ward No. 2, Nagri, P.S. And Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yugal Kishore S/o Mukesh Sahu Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Premin Sahu, Present R/o Jangal Para Ward No. 2, Nagri, P.S. And Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Smt. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.52/2023, 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondent no. 1 alleged that she married the applicant on 14.07.2013 according to Hindu customs, and since then was living at her matrimonial home, where respondent no. 2 (child) was also born. The respondent claimed that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family harassed and tortured her over dowry demands, neglected her, and she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, residing at her parental house with respondent no. 2. She has no independent income, while the applicant earns approximately Rs. 7–800 per day as a Raj Mishtri and earns additional income of Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum from agriculture land. On notice, the applicant denied all allegations and stated that the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and could maintain herself. The Family Court, after examining witnesses, allowed the application partly, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month (Rs. 1,500 each for respondent no. 1 and 2). The applicant challenges the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 as illegal and contrary to law. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The respondent no. 1 is a legally wedded wife of another person, making her not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. She further submits that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and refused to live with the applicant, despite the applicant’s efforts to maintain marital life. Her conduct demonstrates that she harassed and mentally tortured the applicant and his family, making her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She also submits that the Family Court failed to consider these facts and wrongly directed the applicant to pay maintenance solely to respondent no. 1. In view of her conduct and voluntary separation, the applicant prays that the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, holding that the respondents were living separately from the applicant for sufficient 4 and justified reasons due to the applicant’s alleged harassment and neglect. The Court noted that the respondents had no independent source of income to sustain themselves, the applicant had failed to provide any maintenance during the period of separation, and that the welfare and upbringing of the minor child required regular support. Considering the evidence, social and financial circumstances of both parties, and the minor’s needs, the Court found it just and reasonable to direct the applicant to pay the above-mentioned maintenance amounts. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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