1 CGHC010119312025 2026:CGHC:37129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 409 of 2025 1. Smt. Leelavati Sahu W/o Devkumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Thana Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G., At Present R/o Village Rishda, Thana Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Akansha Sahu D/o Devkumar Sahu Aged About 4 Years (Minor), Through Guardian Mother Smt. Leelavati Sahu, R/o Village Khatiyapati, Thana Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G., At Present R/o Village Rishda, Thana Balodabazar, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Devkumar Sahu S/o Tilakram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Thana Balodabazar, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Rustam Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1 9.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 99/2024, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application filed PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.20 13:20:14 +0530 2 by applicant No.1/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, while partly allowing the application in respect of applicant No.2/daughter and directing the non-applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to her. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized in May, 2019, in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community. It is further averred that, due to harassment by the non-applicant, the applicant was compelled to reside separately. The non-applicant neither took care of the applicant nor provided any amount towards her maintenance. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.04.2024, claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The non-applicant is employed in a welding shop and earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. He is also possessed of agricultural land and a residential house, from which he earns approximately Rs.3 to 4 lakhs per annum. Despite having sufficient means, the non-applicant has not provided any amount towards the maintenance of the applicant, leaving her in a state of financial hardship. Upon issuance of notice, the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his written statement, denying the averments made in the application. He contended that the applicant was not entitled to any amount towards maintenance. The applicant examined herself in support of her case, whereas the non-applicant also examined himself. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by applicant No.1 and awarded maintenance of only Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2. It is contended that the applicants are entitled to a higher amount of maintenance and ought to have been awarded maintenance of 3 Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 17.02.2025, passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the law and evidence available on record. The same deserves to be set aside/modified. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in holding that applicant No.1 is residing at her parental home without any sufficient reason, whereas, in fact, she was compelled to live separately due to the harassment caused by the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the application filed by the applicants in its proper perspective. The statement of applicant No.1, read as a whole, was sufficient to establish that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for her to reside separately from the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has further failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and has erred in holding that applicant No.1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant, despite the fact that she is his legally wedded wife and had sufficient cause to reside separately. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the income and financial capacity of the non-applicant, the applicants are entitled to maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced accordingly. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the non-applicant has not taken the defence that he is paying any amount towards the maintenance of applicant No.2. It is his moral, social and legal responsibility to maintain his child. In the present case, applicant No.1/wife is residing separately from the non-applicant without any sufficient reason and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband/non-applicant. However, despite being financially capable, the non-applicant is not maintaining his child, although it is his legal and moral duty to provide maintenance to his child. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti