1 CGHC010091652026 2026:CGHC:37701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 346 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shashibala Sahu W/o Yogendra Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Atal Awas Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (Cg) 2 - Yash Sahu S/o Yogendra Sahu Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Applicant No. 1 R/o Atal Awas Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (Cg) ... Applicant(s) versus Yogendra Sahu S/o Bisauha Ram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Atal Awas, Shyam Nagar, Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate (legal aid) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /08/2026 1. The applicants have 6led this criminal revision against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1368/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC 6led by the applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants, i.e., applicant No.1 (wife) and applicant No.2 (son), 6led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent (husband/father). The marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 08.03.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg. It was alleged that after marriage, applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members and was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home, compelling her to live separately. The applicants further alleged that the respondent was running a fancy store and earning about ₹30,000/- per month and was also earning approximately ₹5 lakh per annum from agricultural land, but was not providing any maintenance to them. Applicant No.1 claimed that she was a homemaker with no independent source of income, while applicant No.2 was a school-going child requiring expenses towards education, travelling, tuition, books, uniform and food. The respondent appeared before the Family Court and denied the allegations. After trial, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 09.12.2025, dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that applicant No.1 was capable of maintaining herself and applicant No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is legally unsustainable, perverse and erroneous, as the learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence, wrongly held that applicant No.1 is capable of 3 maintaining herself and applicant No.2. He further submits that the applicants, being the legally wedded wife and son of the respondent, are entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is running a fancy store and earning about Rs.30,000/- per month and also derives income from agricultural land, yet has failed to provide any maintenance to the applicants. He also submits that applicant No.2 is a school-going child and requires expenses towards school fees, tuition, books, uniform, food and travelling. Therefore, considering the needs of the applicants and the income of the respondent, the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that applicant No.1 is residing in the house of the respondent and is in possession of two shops from which she was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the respondent is residing separately with his younger son and earning his livelihood by running a paan stall and doing labour 4 work. The learned Family Court has further relied upon certain documents produced by the respondent regarding payment of school fees and medical expenses of applicant No.2. 7. However, on careful consideration of the 6ndings recorded in paragraphs 21 to 24 of the impugned order, this Court 6nds that certain material assertions made by the respondent-husband regarding his income, occupation, the circumstances in which he allegedly left the house and business, and the 6nancial assistance allegedly extended by him towards the education and medical treatment of applicant No.2 require closer scrutiny and proper appreciation in the light of the evidence available on record. In particular, the learned Family Court has observed that the respondent earlier used to run a paan stall but, as the said business was not doing well, he is presently earning his livelihood through labour work. The Court has further observed that applicant No.1 was occupying the respondent's house and two shops and was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. These 6ndings have been relied upon to hold that applicant No.1 was earning more than the respondent and was, therefore, capable of maintaining herself and applicant No.2. 8. At the same time, the question as to the actual income and earning capacity of both parties, the nature and ownership of the house and shops, the income allegedly derived therefrom, and the circumstances in which the respondent is stated to have separated from the said house and business are material aspects which ought 5 to have been examined comprehensively before determining the entitlement of the applicants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Similarly, the learned Family Court has relied upon the documents produced by the respondent to conclude that he had provided 6nancial assistance towards the education and medical treatment of applicant No.2. However, such occasional payments, if any, would require consideration in their proper perspective while determining the respondent's continuing obligation to maintain his wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The statement of applicant No.2 regarding the 6nancial assistance allegedly received from the respondent also requires appreciation along with the other evidence on record. It is also noteworthy that the learned Family Court has referred to the sale of ancestral property for an amount of Rs.16.70 lakh and has observed that the said property was jointly owned by the respondent and his family members and, therefore, the entire sale consideration could not be treated as the respondent's income. However, the actual share of the respondent, if any, and the 6nancial circumstances of the parties in the light of such transaction also require proper consideration. 9. This Court is conscious of the fact that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence is not ordinarily warranted. However, where material evidence and relevant circumstances have not been properly appreciated and the 6ndings recorded by the Family Court have a direct bearing on the entitlement of the applicants to maintenance, interference becomes necessary to ensure a just and proper adjudication of the matter. 6 10. In the present case, this Court 6nds that the 6ndings recorded by the learned Family Court in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the impugned order, particularly with regard to the respondent's occupation and income, the alleged earning of applicant No.1 from the shops, the circumstances in which the respondent left the house and business, the sale of ancestral property and the 6nancial assistance allegedly provided by the respondent towards the education and medical treatment of applicant No.2, require reconsideration after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1368/2022, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law and speci6cally re-examine the observations/6ndings recorded in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the impugned order, after properly appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the respective income and earning capacity of the parties, the alleged income of applicant No.1 from the shops, the respondent's occupation and actual income, the circumstances relating to the residence and business of the parties, the sale of ancestral property and the alleged 6nancial assistance 7 provided by the respondent towards the education and medical treatment of applicant No.2. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certi6ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan