1 2026:CGHC:2203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 62 of 2026 Aone Kumar Sahu S/o Ramdas Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Jarhabhata Panna Nagar Near Sai Baba Hospital Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt Aruna Sahu W/o Aone Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o At Tikrapara, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Mansi Sahu D/o Aone Kumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o At Tikrapara, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in miscellaneous criminal case No. 814/2022 in the interest of justice” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 09.03.2003 at Bilaspur according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2, a daughter, was born, who is presently residing with respondent No.1. The respondents 昀椀led an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 125 CrPC) seeking maintenance on the allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, neglect, and desertion, contending that respondent No.1 was compelled to live separately and has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is a man of su昀케cient means. The applicant 昀椀led his reply admitting the marriage but denying all other allegations, contending that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home soon after marriage, that no physical relationship was ever established between the parties, that no dowry was demanded or retained by him, and that the claim of birth of respondent No.2 from the wedlock is doubtful. The applicant further pleaded that respondent No.1 is well-educated, 昀椀nancially independent, and supported by her parental family, and that the application was 昀椀led after an unexplained delay of about 21 years. After failure of reconciliation proceedings under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, evidence was recorded and the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date of order. Hence, the present petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, failed to appreciate the material facts and pleadings on record, inasmuch as the applicant had categorically pleaded in his reply that respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted the applicant about 22 years and 3 months ago without any justi昀椀able reason. The learned Court further erred in ignoring the speci昀椀c contention of the applicant that from the very 昀椀rst day of marriage respondent No.1 used derogatory remarks regarding the applicant’s appearance, addressed him with humiliating expressions, and openly stated that she was in love with one Devesh Sahu, thereby refusing to discharge her matrimonial obligations, and that she lived with the applicant for merely 18 days. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 had submitted an application before the Mahila Thana solely for obtaining a caste certi昀椀cate from the applicant, wherein she herself admitted that she had been living separately from the applicant for about 19 years and did not raise any allegation as made in the present proceedings, a copy whereof has been 昀椀led as Annexure A/2. The learned Family Court also overlooked the fact that the applicant had already apprehended false implication and had submitted written representations dated 27.08.2024 to the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is a well-educated and graduate woman, fully capable of earning her livelihood, yet this vital aspect was ignored. The learned Court also failed to notice that the application 昀椀led by respondent No.1 was vague and bereft of speci昀椀c dates and events regarding the 4 marriage or alleged separation. The evidence on record further demonstrates that respondent No.1 had been living with her alleged lover Devesh Sahu for about 21 years and only after being abandoned by him, the present application under Section 144 of BNSS was 昀椀led. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 herself admitted in her deposition, particularly in paragraphs 20 and 21, that the complaint lodged at Mahila Thana did not contain the allegations raised before the learned Court, and that prior to 03.09.2024 no complaint was ever lodged against the applicant. The learned Court ignored further admissions of respondent No.1 that she received a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and had rented out the same, and that she failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the applicant owns a house or operates a grocery shop or earns as alleged. The respondents also failed to authenticate the income of the applicant, and respondent No.1 did not 昀椀le the mandatory a昀케davit of assets and liabilities as required under the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is presently unemployed, su昀昀ering from multiple health issues including de昀椀ciency of blood, incapable of undertaking physical work, and is surviving solely on the pension of his father; therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the application 昀椀led by the respondents under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The learned Court correctly took note of the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the factum of marriage solemnized on 09.03.2003 at Bilaspur according to Hindu rites and rituals, and the existence of respondent No.2 born out of the said wedlock. The learned Family Court also duly appreciated the allegations of neglect and failure on the part of the applicant to maintain respondent No.1, as well as the prolonged separate residence of the parties, and after recording evidence and considering the 昀椀nancial capacity and status of the applicant, passed a reasoned and well-balanced order. The reconciliation proceedings under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act having failed, the learned Court below rightly proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits and, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2025, judiciously granted a modest and reasonable maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date of order. The said order is just, proper, and in consonance with the settled principles governing maintenance proceedings. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi昀椀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