1 CGHC010455952024 2026:CGHC:32993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 20 of 2025 Jai Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Shivcharan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Semariha, P.S. And Tehsil- Kelhari, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Savita Sahu W/o Shri Jai Prakash Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Semariha, P.S. And Tehsil- Kelhari, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 35/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month, stating that the she was married with the applicant prior to 28 years at Talwapara, Baikunthpur, C.G., as per Hindu custom. It is further stated that after marriage she was residing with applicant, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 where both the parties continued to perform conjugal relations and duties. Out of their wedlock there is one daughter who got married. It is further stated that, recently she performed the marriage of her daughter by taking loan from her maternal relatives and shopkeepers and now they are demanding their loan amount but she could not repayment as she not having money. It is contended that, after marriage, the behavior of the applicant was well for sometime, after that and prior to 4 years the applicant, brother-in-law (Devar) and Sister-in-law (Devrani) and other relatives of applicant started to harassing her by doubt on her character, consuming liquor and started beaten to her without any reason. The applicant started troubling her about food and drink, started forcing her to do the work of all the family members in the house etc. 4. But, she continued to bear it thinking that there would be change in the behavior of the applicant, but there was no change in his behavior. The respondent has developed paralysis like disease in her leg, her leg has become numb, she is unable to walk slowly and remains ill every day. She is not able to do any work and the applicant used to harass her. The applicant has started living separately. She had reported the assault by the applicant and her sister-in-law (Devrani) in the Police Station, Kelhari, the case on which is pending in the Court of Manendragarh. Respondent also stated that, she had reported the incident of assault, torture and cruelty committed by applicant and his family on which evidence was found by the women's cell, and a case of domestic violence is under consideration in the Court of Manendragarh. It is also contended the applicant runs Kirana shop and 3 also goes to the market to set up a shop from which he earns 15 to 20,000/- per month and also does agricultural work from which he earns Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant takes and drinks at his brother's house. The relatives of maternal house of respondent tried hard to understand the applicant, but the applicant threatens and raise disputes and he has not given any money from the last 4 years nor does he arrange for maintenance and therefore she claimed Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent is living separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, and thus, as per the provision contained under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, she is not entitled to be granted any maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that no such good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and thus after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar