1 2026:CGHC:5818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 597 of 2024 Suraj Prakash Sahu S/o Gangaram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Risda, Main Road, Post OfÏce Risda, Police Station Baloda Bazar City, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Suman Prabha Sahu W/o Suraj Prakash Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Piprod, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount awarded vide order dated 29/04/2024, (Annexure P/1) by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), passed in MCC No. 228/2023, be quashed and set aside. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the Respondent–wife, and the Applicant–husband, was solemnized on 19.02.2022 at Village Pipraud, District Raipur (C.G.). The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that soon after marriage the applicant subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands and harassment, due to which she was compelled to reside at her parental home. She further pleaded that she has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is qualified and has sufÏcient means, and therefore claimed maintenance. The applicant denied the allegations, contending that the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause, lodged false complaints, and that he is presently unemployed though willing to keep her with him. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court held that the respondent–wife is living separately for sufÏcient cause, is unable to maintain herself, and that the applicant is legally bound to maintain her, and accordingly, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife from the date of application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant–husband submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside, as the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and has passed the order merely on conjectures and surmises. It is 3 contended that the respondent–wife left the matrimonial home of her own volition without any sufÏcient cause and, as such, is not entitled to maintenance under law. The learned Court further erred in ignoring that the respondent did not place any documentary material to contradict the afÏdavit of the applicant, contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is further submitted that the respondent has made false, vague and baseless allegations against the applicant and his family, amounting to mental cruelty and harassment. The respondent is a young, well-educated and qualified lady, having completed B.Sc. (Nursing), and is fully capable of maintaining herself, yet she is deliberately not taking up any employment only to harass the applicant. It is also urged that the parties were married only in the year 2022 and soon thereafter the respondent left the matrimonial home and filed the maintenance application. The learned Court failed to consider that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and that, despite recording a finding that the applicant has no established source of income, it erroneously directed him to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month, which is excessive and unsustainable. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.). 4 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 learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, afÏdavits and evidence adduced by both the parties, has rightly held that the marriage between the respondent–wife and the applicant– husband is admitted and subsisting, and that the respondent has been living separately for sufÏcient and justifiable reasons. The learned Court has further correctly recorded a finding that the respondent has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant, being an able-bodied person, is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the social status of the parties and their respective pleadings, the learned Family Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by directing the applicant to pay a reasonable sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of application, which neither suffers from any illegality nor perversity. 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. 5 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