1 2026:CGHC:5569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 345 of 2024 1 - Smt. Bharti Sahu W/o Shri Someshwar Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Thana - O.P. Chikhli, Tahsil And Distt. - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Ruchika Sahu D/o Shri Someshwar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bharti Sahu, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Thana - O.P. Chikhli, Tahsil And Distt. - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Someshwar Sahu S/o Shri Tukaram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Dengrapar, (Malighori) Thana - Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, 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: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 14.02.2024 which relates to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 applicant No. 1 may kindly be set aside and suitable amount may kindly be awarded and the amount of maintenance of applicant No. 2 may kindly be enhanced looking to the facts and circumstances as well as looking to present status of living, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No.1, wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, applicant No.2, pleading that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 20.11.2020 at Rajnandgaon and that out of the wedlock the applicant No.2 was born on 14.05.2022. It was alleged that shortly after marriage, the respondent and his family began harassing and assaulting the applicant No.1 for dowry, and during her pregnancy threatened to abandon her if she delivered a girl child, on 28.01.2022 she was left at her parental home and was not taken back thereafter. It was further averred that the respondent is a person of substantial means, owning four acres of agricultural land yielding Rs.10–20 lakhs annually, two tractors let out on hire, and additional income from cultivation, and is therefore duty-bound to maintain the applicants. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations, contended that the marriage of applicant No.1 is his second marriage, that she is educated and capable of maintaining herself, and that applicant No.2 was born at her maternal aunt’s house, hence neither is entitled to maintenance. After framing three 3 issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court held that applicant No.1 was residing at her parental home without sufÏcient cause and dismissed her claim, but partly allowed maintenance for applicant No.2, granting Rs.1,500/- per month. Hence, the present petition.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in passing the impugned order by rejecting the maintenance application of applicant No.1, relying solely upon the statements of the respondent, without properly appreciating that applicant No.1 has been residing separately due to continuous physical and mental harassment, ill-treatment, and ouster by the respondent during her pregnancy, including threats of abandonment if she delivered a girl child. It is further submitted that the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife and minor daughter is legally maintainable, as the respondent possesses sufÏcient means and is duty-bound to provide maintenance. The learned Court failed to consider that the applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and has been entirely dependent on her parents for livelihood, while also nurturing her daughter born in 2022, and that she had earlier lodged a police report against the respondent and his family, supported by oral and documentary evidence. The Court also did not properly examine the income, assets, and conduct of the respondent, nor the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 SCC), and the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month granted for applicant No.2 is grossly insufÏcient for her food, care, and upbringing. The findings of the learned Family Court are therefore perverse, contrary 4 to the material on record, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the maintenance amount enhanced suitably. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2024, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, by dismissing the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and partly allowing maintenance for applicant No.2. It is submitted that the Family Court correctly found that applicant No.1 was residing at her parental home without sufÏcient cause and failed to establish that she was entitled to maintenance, whereas maintenance for the minor child was granted in accordance with her needs. The respondent’s contentions that the marriage of applicant No.1 is his second marriage, that she is educated and capable of maintaining herself, and that applicant No.2 was born at her maternal aunt’s house were properly considered. The impugned order is therefore just, legal, and in accordance with Section 125 Cr.P.C., and there is no ground to interfere with the same. 5. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 5 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. 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