1 2026:CGHC:7136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 570 of 2024 Aditya Kumar Sahu S/o Alekh Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Police Station Bownsuni Town, District Bouddh (Odisha) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sandhyarani Sahu W/o Aditya Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir, K.L.C., Zone-3, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Shreyansh Sahu S/o Aditya Sahu, Aged About 7 Years Minor, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Sandhyarani Sahu (respondent No.1) R/o Near Durga Mandir, K.L.C., Zone-3, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside 2 the impugned order dated 11-03-2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents, being the wife and minor child of the applicant–husband, ;led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.), seeking grant of maintenance on the ground that due to alleged cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband and his family members they were compelled to reside separately and had no independent source of income for their sustenance, while the husband was engaged in the business of milk and milk products and was ;nancially capable of maintaining them, and accordingly claimed monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-; the applicant–husband contested the claim by ;ling reply denying all allegations of cruelty and contending that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without su@cient cause, that he earns only about Rs. 5,000/- per month from his business and has no agricultural income, that he is willing to keep the wife and child with him, and that the wife is well educated, having completed B.A., B.Ed. and computer course, and is capable of maintaining herself and the child; upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and submissions of the parties, the learned Family Court, by impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondents, i.e., Rs. 2,500/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the child. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and procedure, suDering from material illegality and perversity, and is therefore liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without su@cient cause despite the applicant’s willingness to keep and maintain her and the child at the matrimonial house. It is further contended that the applicant earns only about Rs. 5,000/- per month from his milk business and has no agricultural income, and therefore the maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and beyond his paying capacity. It is also submitted that the wife is a professionally quali;ed and able-bodied person, having completed B.A., B.Ed. and computer education and being skilled in stitching work, from which she is capable of earning su@cient income to maintain herself and the child, and hence she is not entitled to maintenance. Additionally, it is urged that after the birth of the child the wife herself started maintaining distance, neglected household responsibilities, created disputes on trivial issues, and is presently residing at her parental home at her own volition and for personal convenience, including her preference to reside at Bhilai rather than at the matrimonial home in Odisha, and despite this the applicant continues to express readiness to keep her and the child with him. Thus, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the true facts, ;nancial status and surrounding circumstances, has passed the impugned order which is unsustainable and liable to be 4 interfered with. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.). 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, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned and lawful order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor child, totaling Rs. 4,500/- per month, has been awarded, keeping in view the needs of the claimants as well as the ;nancial capacity of the applicant–husband, thus, the impugned order reIects due application of judicial mind. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by 5 this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi;ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan