1 2026:CGHC:26305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 784 of 2026 Dhaneshwar Sahu S/o Leela Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Government School, Ward No. 11, Village- Khiloura, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Keshari Sahu W/o Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Bazar Chouk, Bhatapara Kurud, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Rajat Sahu S/o Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 9 Years Through Natural Guardian Her Mother Namely Keshari Sahu Of The Res. No. 2, R/o Ward No. 22, Bazar Chouk, Bhatapara Kurud, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sakshi Sahu S/o Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Her Mother Namely Keshari Sahu Of The Res. No. 3, R/o Ward No. 22, Bazar Chouk, Bhatapara Kurud, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) … Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant 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 further be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2026, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant/husband and non-applicant No.1/wife solemnized their marriage on 27.01.2012 in accordance with Chudi customs, and out of the said wedlock two children, namely, non-applicant Nos.2 and 3, were born and are residing with their mother. The non-applicants instituted an application under Section 125 of the CrPC alleging that after the birth of their daughter, the applicant started subjecting non- applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, neglected to maintain her and the children, developed an illicit relationship with another woman, and ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home on 04.01.2023. It was further alleged that the applicant is engaged in the business of painting, employs several labourers, earns about Rs.50,000/- per month besides agricultural income, and despite having sufficient means, failed to maintain the non-applicants, who accordingly claimed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. The applicant resisted the claim by denying all allegations and contending that it was non-applicant No.1 who frequently quarreled with him and his family, voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with the children, and was herself earning through tailoring and embroidery, while the applicant was working as a painter earning only Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the 3 pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to non-applicant Nos.2 and 3, aggregating to Rs.7,000/- per month, payable from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, and suffers from serious factual as well as legal infirmities. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, including the testimony of the applicant and his witnesses, and has thus arrived at an erroneous conclusion. It is further submitted that the applicant is suffering from Hydrocele and Thyroid Disorder and is undergoing regular medical treatment, which has adversely affected his physical condition and earning capacity. The applicant had duly placed on record the relevant medical documents along with an application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC, however, the learned Family Court failed to consider the said material while assessing the applicant’s financial capacity. It is also submitted that non-applicant No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and is, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant has no regular source of income and is unable to pay the maintenance as awarded by the learned Family Court. It is thus 4 submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and in violation of the settled principles of law and natural justice, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has recorded well-reasoned findings. The learned Family Court has considered the rival contentions of both parties regarding the allegations of cruelty, neglect, and the financial capacity of the applicant, and upon proper appreciation of the evidence, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC by awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month each to non-applicant Nos.2 and 3, aggregating to Rs.7,000/- per month. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on the evidence available on record. The impugned order is well reasoned, just, and in accordance with the settled principles governing the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the 5 learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 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 be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan