1 CGHC010206782025 2026:CGHC:36280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 720 of 2025 1. Smt. Radhika @ Kaushilya Sahu W/o Ram Singh Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o House of Sudhu Sahu S/o Punaram Sahu Gandhi Chowk Village Devari P.S. And Tehsil - Bhatapara Gramin District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Minor Chhaya Sahu D/o Ram Singh Sahu Aged About 5 Years (Through Her Legal Guardian Smt. Radhika @ Kaushilya Sahu), R/o House of Sudhu Sahu S/o Punaram Sahu Gandhi Chowk Village Devari P.S. And Tehsil - Bhatapara Gramin District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Ram Singh Sahu S/o Bihari Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Macchali Para Village - Jhulna P.S. Maro, Tehsil Narayanpur (Near House of Ex Councilor Punni Banchhor District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shrijan Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prachi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Shrijan Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been ?led by the applicants seeking following prayer:- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 18:53:49 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition and set aside the order dated 19/03/2025 passed by the Learned family court Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in miscellaneous criminal case number 314/2023 and grant the maintenance in the interest of Justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent got married on 27.04.2022 at Village Jhulna, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, in accordance with the rituals and customs prevailing in their caste. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child, namely applicant No. 2, was born on 23.05.2023. After the marriage, applicant No. 1 started residing in the matrimonial home with the respondent. The respondent and his mother used to taunt, abuse, and beat applicant No. 1, alleging that the dowry articles were of poor quality and that the motorcycle given in the marriage was of inferior quality. They also used to ?nd fault with the food prepared by applicant No. 1. The jewellery given to applicant No. 1 at the time of marriage, including three gold lockets weighing approximately three masa, ?fteen tolas of silver anklets, and a twenty-?ve-tola silver kardhan, was kept by her mother-in-law. In the month of July, when her father and brother came to take her to her parental home, she went with them and thereafter disclosed to her parents the harassment and ill- treatment meted out to her by her in-laws. After four days, when applicant No. 1 was asked to return to her matrimonial home, the respondent refused to take her back. Thereafter, the brother of applicant No. 1 went to drop her at her matrimonial home. The respondent took away the amount of Rs. 5,000/- given to applicant No. 1 by her parents and started beating her, demanding that she bring money from her 3 parental home for repayment of his debts. He also demanded that she hand over her jewellery to him. On one occasion, the respondent poured kerosene over applicant No. 1 and set her on ?re. She saved her life by pouring water over herself. Her in-laws had also forbidden her from disclosing the aforesaid incidents to her parents and did not allow her to communicate with her maternal family members. When the applicant No. 1 was pregnant, the respondent and his family members failed to take proper care of her. Even the Chhathi ceremony of applicant No. 2 was not organized by her in-laws. During her pregnancy, her mother-in-law subjected her to mental and physical harassment and compelled her to perform all household chores, due to which she became weak. Thereafter, the maternal grandfather, father, and brother of applicant No. 1 came to her matrimonial home along with the village Sarpanch. When the respondent was asked to call the other persons from the village, he refused to do so. 4. Due to the aforesaid conduct and behaviour of her husband and in-laws, applicant No. 1 submitted a written complaint before the State Women Commission, Raipur, on 24.07.2023. During the proceedings before the Commission, the respondent agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards the maintenance of applicant No. 2; however, the said amount was not paid by the respondent. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 ?led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent was wilfully neglecting and refusing to discharge his responsibility towards the applicants. Applicant No. 1 claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the respondent is engaged in electrical ?tting work on a contractual basis, from which he earns approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month, and that he also earns approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum from two-crop 4 agricultural land inherited from his ancestors situated at Village Jhulna. 5. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.03.2025, the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, partly allowed the application ?led by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month towards the maintenance of Applicant No. 2, while rejecting the application insofar as it related to applicant No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, improper, and not sustainable in the eye of law. The applicant No. 1 does not have any suFcient or independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent has a suFcient and regular source of income. He also submits that the order dated 19.03.2025 has been passed without properly considering the circumstances of applicant No. 1. Due to the torture, harassment, and ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws, she was compelled to reside at her parental home. He submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without properly considering the fact that applicant No. 1 is unemployed and has no means to maintain herself. She is a ?nancially dependent woman, and the ?nancial condition of her father is also not sound. There are several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts holding that a wife has a right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. when she has been deserted by her husband and is unable to maintain herself. The learned Court Family Court has overlooked the fact that after applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home, the respondent did not make any eHorts to bring her back or to resume matrimonial life with her. He further submits that the respondent earns approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month from electrical ?tting work and, apart from the said income, he also earns 5 approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum from ancestral agricultural land situated at Village Jhulna, which is capable of producing two crops in a year. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned order rejecting the claim for maintenance of applicant No. 1 without properly appreciating the evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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, partly allowed the application ?led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2, whereas the application for grant of maintenance ?led on behalf of applicant No.1 was rejected by the learned Family Court, observing that she is living separately from the respondent without suFcient cause. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the impugned order and the ?ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality, in?rmity, or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek