1 CGHC010166642025 2026:CGHC:35602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 595 of 2025 Golak Bihari Sahu (G.B. Sahu) S/o Late Kashinath Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Ambilapalli, Post Tonkachhai, Police Station Kavisurajnagar (Boirani) Via Pittalo, District Ganjam, Orissa Pin Code 761103 O3ce Address Village And Post Tonkachhai, Primary School, Police Station Kavisurajnagar, District Ganjam Orissa ... Applicant versus 1. Smt Asharani Sahu W/o Golak Bihari Sahu Aged About 42 Years Present Address Through Shri Bhaskar Dalai, Qrt No. 13A, Road No. 32, Sector 10, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Haripriya Sahu D/o Golak Bihari Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Guardian/ Mother Smt. Asha Rani Sahu, Present Address Through Shri Bhaskar Dalai, Qrt No. 13A, Road No. 32, Sector 10, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Ku. Dipika D/o Golak Bihari Sahu Aged About 9 Years Through Legal Guardian/ Mother Smt. Asha Rani Sahu, Present Address Through Shri Bhaskar Dalai, Qrt No. 13A, Road No. 32, Sector 10, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.13 15:05:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashwin Panickar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been >led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleases to allow the revision and set-aside the order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, in MJC case No.1259/2016, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.). According to the application >led by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, the marriage of the applicant with respondent No. 1 was solemnized in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions in the year 1997 at Odisha. After the marriage, it is alleged that respondent No. 1 was subjected to ill-treatment by the applicant and that the applicant, after consuming liquor, used to abuse and assault respondent No. 1. Due to the aforesaid reason, respondent No. 1 came to Bhilai, where she gave birth to respondent No. 2, namely Haripriya, who was thereafter brought up by the father of respondent No. 1. During this period, a compromise was arrived at between the parties before the Family Court, 3 Aska, District Ganjam, Odisha, in MAT Case No. 08/2004 in the year 2005. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 gave birth to respondent No. 3, namely Ku. Dipika. It has further been stated in the application that the applicant used to ill-treat respondent No. 1 at the instigation of his sister. Therefore, keeping in view the bright future and education of respondent No. 2 (Haripriya), respondent No. 1 came to Bhilai in the year 2008. It is further submitted that the applicant intended to solemnize the marriage of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, used to abuse and threaten her in-laws over the mobile phone. Consequently, respondent No. 2 submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam, Odisha, and the District Magistrate, Durg, through registered post, seeking appropriate action against the applicant. It is also submitted that a message was conveyed over the phone to respondent No. 2 that her grandmother was unwell. Accordingly, on 18.06.2013, when respondent No. 2 went to see her grandmother, she found that her grandmother had already passed away. The respondents further averred in the application that when respondent No. 2 wanted to return to Bhilai after the completion of the 13th-day ceremony of her grandmother, the applicant detained respondent No. 2 in the house and also restricted her from moving alone and meeting people. It is further alleged that the applicant snatched the mobile phone of respondent No. 2 from her possession and threatened to kill her in-laws. 4. Thereafter, the mother of respondent No. 1, namely Smt. Shanti Dalai, >led an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned SDM, Durg, pursuant to which a search warrant was issued by the learned Court. Thereafter, the statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded on 12.07.2013. Since then, the respondents have been residing along with the father of respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that the 4 applicant mortgaged certain jewellery with the Bank and also transferred the documents relating to certain land in the name of his sister. The respondent No. 1 further submitted that she had >led an application against the applicant under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned JMFC, Durg, wherein the learned JMFC, Durg, passed an order dated 04.04.2016 directing payment of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 1. It was further submitted by respondent No. 1 that the said amount had not been deposited, despite the applicant being employed as a teacher in a Government school. In addition, the applicant was also earning income from agriculture. Hence, the respondents claimed maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month by >ling an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The applicant, in his reply, denied all the averments made by the respondents in their application >led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant submitted that neither any dowry was demanded nor did the parents of respondent No. 1 give any amount or articles towards dowry to the applicant. It was further submitted that, after the marriage, respondent No. 1 started misbehaving with the applicant and pressurizing him to earn more money in order to maintain a high standard of living. The respondent No. 1 insisted on living in a big city and refused to take care of the aged parents of the applicant. She also pressurized the applicant to live separately from his parents. As per the family customs and rituals, respondent No. 1 went to her matrimonial home on 09.01.1998 after she became pregnant and thereafter started residing with her parents. Subsequently, when the applicant went to meet respondent No. 1 at her parental home, she ignored the applicant. On 03.03.1998, in the absence of the applicant and without informing him, respondent No. 1 took furniture, 15 carats of gold, cash, and other 5 household articles to Bhilai. When the applicant attempted to bring respondent No. 1 back, she refused to return. Thereafter, the applicant sent his father along with some other persons to Bhilai to bring back his daughter, respondent No. 2. An altercation took place between them. The applicant sent registered legal notices seeking restoration of matrimonial life to respondent No. 1 on three occasions, i.e., on 20.02.1999, 23.03.1999, and 27.03.2001. However, respondent No. 1 refused to return. Thereafter, a divorce petition/complaint case for recovery of articles was >led before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aska, Odisha. The matter ultimately ended in a compromise, pursuant to which respondent No. 1 resumed cohabitation with the applicant. During this period, respondent No. 1 gave birth to respondent No. 3. The applicant further averred in his reply that respondent No. 1 compelled the applicant to send respondent No. 2 to Bhilai for her studies and misbehaved with the applicant. She also refused to perform her matrimonial duties and insisted that the applicant obtain a transfer to Ambilapalli, Odisha. The applicant thereafter obtained his transfer to Kavisuryanagar, Odisha, on account of the admission of respondent No. 3 to the Central School, District Ganjam, Odisha, where respondent No. 1 was also working as an Anganwadi worker. Although respondent No. 1 was receiving a salary, the applicant continued to ful>l her >nancial needs. The applicant further submitted that respondent No. 1 was dissatis>ed with her employment and constantly subjected the applicant to harassment and pressure to reside with her parents at Bhilai. 6. On 29.06.2013, respondent No. 1 >led an application under Section 97 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the learned SDM, Bhilai, pursuant to which the learned Court passed an order and issued a search warrant. Thereafter, on 10.07.2013, the respondents, without informing the 6 applicant, left the house at Kavisuryanagar, Odisha. It is further submitted that, with an intention to harass and pressurize the applicant, a complaint was lodged before the Protection O3cer, Bhilai, District Durg, on 08.01.2024. The applicant also averred in his reply that respondent No. 1 had >led an application under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned JMFC, Durg, on 09.01.2014, pursuant to which an interim order was passed directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1. Hence, the application preferred by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. deserved to be dismissed. 7. The learned Family Court, after receiving the application >led by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the counter/reply >led by the present applicant, framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties on oath under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. 8. After recording the evidence brought on record, the learned Family Court meticulously scrutinized the evidence and ultimately passed an order directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1. The learned Family Court further observed that, if the respondent is receiving any amount under any other law, the same shall be adjusted against the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Court. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, improper, unreasonable, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the applicant is >ling the details of the income and >nancial status of both parties in compliance with the observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. He also submits that during the pendency of the application >led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., registered as MJC Case No. 1259/2016, the 7 present applicant >led an application challenging the maintainability of the application >led by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant had >led an application seeking dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodala, District Ganjam, Odisha, registered as MAT Case No. 23/2015. It is humbly submitted that the said case was decided on 15.02.2022, whereby the learned Court passed a judgment dissolving the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The learned Court also determined the permanent alimony payable to respondent No. 1 and directed the applicant to pay an amount towards the maintenance and educational expenses of the children. The present applicant >led a CMA (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal) in respect of the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 15.02.2022 in MAT Case No. 23/2015, seeking permission for payment of the amount in instalments in compliance with the judgment dated 15.02.2022. He also submits that the respondent No. 1 challenged the judgment dated 15.02.2022 and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodala, in MAT Case No. 23/2015, before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kodala, District Ganjam, Odisha, by >ling R.F.A. No. 04 of 2022. The said Regular First Appeal was decided on 22.02.2024, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8 12. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application >led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No. 1. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek