1 2026:CGHC:5620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 969 of 2024 • Somesh Sahu S/o Jagannath Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No.-9, Tumgaon Road, Near Railway Crossing, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District-Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Soniya Sahu W/o Somesh Sahu, Aged About 22 Years At Present R/o Through Parmanand Sahu, Village And Post Bhilai, P.S., Tahsil- Arang, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Kartik Sahu S/o Somesh Sahu, Aged About 2 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Soniya Sahu, At Present R/o Through Parmanand Sahu, Village And Post Bhilai, P.S., Tahsil- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Khushboo Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set aside the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] in Misc. Criminal Case no. 1021/2022 or granted maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.03 10:51:53 +0530 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the marriage between them was solemnized on 12.02.2020 and that the respondent No.2 was born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded respondent No.1 left her matrimonial house and residing with her son respondent No.2 at her parental house. The respondent No.1 has no any source of income to survival and applicant is running business of Aata Chakki from which he earns of Rs.40,000/- per month and his father also having agriculture land on on which he obtained of Rs.4,80,000/- monthly income and hence the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 26.07.2024 whereby allowed the maintenance application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- for respondents per month. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore liable to be modified/set aside. It is further contended that respondent No.1 applicant on own motion left the house of the applicant, therefore he is not able to get the benefit of maintenance under the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that learned Court below has failed to consider that the applicant is working as labour and his parents have totally dependent upon his low income and hence the applicant has unable to give maintenance amount to the respondents. Hence impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, has rightly held that the respondent No.2, being minor, 3 was entitled to maintenance from his father, who is gainfully employed and has sufficient means to support them. The order dated 26.07.2024 granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- and respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- for respondent No.2 per month cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable, keeping in view the status, income and obligations of the applicant as well as the educational and day-to-day needs of the children. Further, while considering the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, therefore, reflects a proper and judicious exercise of discretion by the learned Family Court. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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 vaishali