1 2026:CGHC:8091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1133 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Gunjera (Maro), Post And P.S. Maro Tehsil Nawagarh District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Keshri Kanchan Sahu W/o Manoj Kumar Sahu Aged About 24 Years D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar R/o Village Dhaurabhata Post Fekari P.S. Utal, Tehsil Patan District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 31.08.2024 passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1319/2019, may kindly be set-aside and application /led by the respondent for grant of maintenance may kindly be dismissed. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 any other order as it may deem /t, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–wife 7led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month, pleading that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 27.04.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Dhaurabhata, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, and that the applicant is serving as a Constable in the C.R.P.F. earning approximately Rs.60,000/- per month. She alleged that soon after marriage she was subjected to persistent dowry demands, verbal abuse, mental and physical cruelty, and intimidation by the applicant and his family members, and having no independent source of income, she was compelled to seek maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations of cruelty and contended that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without su@cient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. It was further brought on record that proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Domestic Violence Act were initiated by the respondent and that a decree of divorce dated 25.04.2024 had already been passed. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent–wife. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the material available on 3 record and has erroneously granted maintenance to the respondent–wife, who, according to the applicant, is not legally entitled to the same. It is contended that the respondent is residing separately from the applicant without any justi7able cause and that the learned Family Court ought to have adjudicated the matter strictly on the basis of the pleadings, reply, and a@davit of assets and liabilities placed on record. Learned counsel further submits that although the Family Court is not strictly bound by the procedural provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it is nevertheless required to pass a reasoned and lawful order in consonance with the true scope and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is thus urged that the impugned order suDers from illegality, perversity, and arbitrariness and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 2nd Additional 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 of the parties, the evidence placed on record, and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in granting maintenance to the respondent–wife. The 4 learned Court has taken into account the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, the absence of any independent source of income for the respondent, and the earning capacity of the applicant, who is serving as a Constable in the C.R.P.F. The quantum of maintenance awarded, i.e., Rs.7,000/- per month, appears to be reasonable, just, and commensurate with the needs of the respondent and the 7nancial status of the applicant. The 7ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and settled legal principles governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi7ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan