1 2026:CGHC:17188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 484 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sonam W/o Pravin Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o C/o Hemlal Sahu Kesariya Colony, Ward No. 15, Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Khubi D/o Pravin Sahu Aged About 4 Years Age 06 Months (At Present 04 Years) Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sonam W/o Pravin Sahu. W/o Pravin Sahu. R/o C/o Hemlal Sahu Kesariya Colony, Ward No. 15, Village Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Pravin Kumar Sahu S/o Arun Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years At Present 36 Years. R/o Village Amapendri, Post Tarra, Tahsil And Thana- Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: (I) “That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (ii). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the judgment dated 03/01/2026 to the extent. that, Respondent/Husband may be directed to provide a maintenance amount to applicant no. 01/wife and further that the maintenance amount of Rs. 1000/- in favour of Applicant No. 02 may kindly be increased, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant No. 01 and the Non-applicant was solemnized on 14.12.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Arjunda, District Balod (C.G.), and out of the said wedlock, a daughter namely Khubi applicant No. 02, was born on 21.08.2021. After the marriage, the applicant No. 01 was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by the Non-applicant and his family members on account of alleged insufficiency of articles and gifts given at the time of marriage and she was repeatedly tortured for bringing fewer dowry items. The Non-applicant used to degrade and insult the applicant No. 01 on the basis of her physical appearance and looks, and further subjected her to mental cruelty by stating that he was forcibly made to enter into the said marriage by his family members and parents. After about two months of the marriage, when the applicant No. 01 was facing health issues, the Non-applicant refused to take her for medical treatment and also declined to bear 3 the medical expenses. During this period, the applicant No. 01 came to know about her pregnancy and when the same was communicated to the Non-applicant and his family members, they started making false and baseless allegations regarding her character. On 28.02.2021, the matrimonial family of the applicant No. 01 left her at her uncle’s house and refused to take her back. It was only after the intervention of elders that she was taken back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 19.05.2021, the father-in-law of the applicant No. 01 submitted an application before the Social Committee at Kandul, raising false allegations regarding the character of the applicant No. 01. Subsequently, on 22.05.2021, the applicant No. 01 was subjected to physical abuse and was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parental family. 3. On 22.12.2022, the Non-applicant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and also questioning the legitimacy of the minor girl child born out of the said wedlock. Due to continuous physical and mental harassment, the applicant No. 01 filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, wherein the learned Family Court was pleased to direct the Non-applicant to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to applicant Nos. 01 and 02. However, the Non-applicant has failed to comply with the said order regularly. In order to clear the false allegations and public humiliation, the applicant No. 01 herself moved an application before the learned trial Court seeking permission to conduct a DNA 4 test of applicant No. 02. The DNA profiling report confirmed that the Non-applicant is the natural and biological father of applicant No. 02. ( A copy of the DNA Profiling Report issued by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad, Telangana, is annexed herewith as Annexure A/3). Based on the said DNA report and after due appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the Non-applicant vide judgment dated 04.11.2025, which is annexed herewith as Annexure A/4. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for applicant Nos. 01 and 02. 4. The Non-Applicant has denied all the allegations levelled by the applicants, except those specifically admitted and has submitted that applicant No. 02 is not born out of the wedlock and is not his biological child. It is further contended that applicant No. 01 stayed in the matrimonial home only for a short period and during that time she used to quarrel with the Non-applicant and his family members, pressurize him to live separately, and mentally harass them, thereby making his life miserable. The Non-applicant has stated that he never subjected applicant No. 01 to any physical cruelty and had, in fact, provided for her medical treatment, including giving money and ATM access when she insisted on staying at her parental home. He has further alleged that applicant No. 01 was already pregnant prior to the marriage and that the marriage was solemnized by concealing this fact, thereby disputing the validity of the marriage and the paternity of applicant No. 02. It is also submitted that 5 applicant No. 01 is of quarrelsome and adamant nature, refused proper medical procedures during pregnancy, misbehaved with the Non-applicant and his family and extended threats of false criminal implication. The Non-applicant further alleges that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 22.05.2021 after creating disputes and has been residing at her parental home since then without any justifiable reason. The Non-applicant has additionally submitted that applicant No. 01 is well-educated and capable of maintaining herself, whereas he has no stable source of income and belongs to a large joint family dependent on agriculture and seasonal work. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2026, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the applicants and the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter but with respect to non-applicant No. 1/ wife, dismissed her application on the ground that without any sufficient cause, she has been living separately from her husband. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order in a highly arbitrary manner without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record and has failed to consider that the non-applicant deliberately adopted tactics to evade his legal obligation of maintaining the 6 applicant No. 01, who is his legally wedded wife and was wrongfully ousted from the matrimonial home, as well as applicant No. 02, his minor daughter, whose legitimacy was unjustifiably questioned by the non-applicant but subsequently stood conclusively established through the DNA profiling report confirming him to be the biological father. It is further submitted that the earning capacity of the non- applicant is evident from his own cross-examination wherein he admitted to being well-qualified, holding diplomas in civil engineering and computer applications, having completed ITI and graduation and also deriving income from agricultural land situated at village Amapendri as well as from balloon decoration work, yet the learned Family Court failed to invoke the mandatory requirement of obtaining an affidavit of income and liabilities in terms of the law laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha. It is also contended that despite the applicant No. 01 being a post-graduate, she is presently non- earning and residing at her parental home while bearing the responsibility of a minor child and therefore the Court erred in presuming her earning capacity without considering her actual circumstances, further, the learned Family Court overlooked the settled principles under section 125 Cr.P.C., which aim to prevent vagrancy and mandate that the wife and child are entitled to maintain the standard of living commensurate with the matrimonial home, particularly in a case where the applicant was ousted during pregnancy on false allegations. It is also submitted that the non- applicant’s grounds to deny maintenance are untenable, as the applicant has consistently expressed her willingness to reside in the 7 matrimonial home, whereas the non-applicant himself initiated divorce proceedings, clearly reflecting his intent to abandon his responsibilities, moreover, the learned Family Court failed to consider the medical expenses incurred for applicant No. 02, which amount to approximately Rs. 2,000/- per month and ultimately erred in granting only a meagre amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the minor child while completely denying maintenance to the applicant No. 01, without proper assessment of the financial status and liabilities of the non-applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance to the non-applicant No. 2/daughter and after appreciating the the same, rejected the application of the non-applicant No.1/wife on the ground that without any sufficient cause, she has been living separately. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his status as a dependent and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief regarding non-applicant No.1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the 8 circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal