1 2026:CGHC:1044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 148 of 2023 Kamlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Kunj Lal Sahu Aged About 33 Years Currently R/o Village Gudguda, Danveer Bhamashah Chow, Kunjlal Sahu Mill Wala, Post Parkhanda, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Khushboo Sahu W/o Kamlesh Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o New Changorabhata, Shiv Nagar, Beside Tanya Kirana Stores, Tashsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhavam Alias Bhavik Sahu S/o Kamlesh Sahu Aged About 5 Years Through Mother - Khushbu Sahu W/o Kamlesh Sahu, Currently Aged About 30 Years. R/o New Changorabhata, Shiv Nagar, Beside Tanya Kirana Stores, Tashsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Moulik Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Moulik Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.08 11:04:07 +0530 2 2. The present revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “1.It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to revise the order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in case bearing number MCC Case No. 687/18 by not allowing/reducing the maintenance amount granted to the respondents herein. 2. Any other relief this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice, Equity and Good Conscience.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 28.03.2015 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, respondent No.1 started residing in her matrimonial home with her husband. From the said wedlock, respondent No.2, namely Bhavam alias Bhavik Sahu, was born. After marriage, respondent No.1 stayed in her matrimonial house only for two days for the purpose of completing matrimonial rituals. She had already informed prior to the marriage that she would not be able to stay permanently in her matrimonial home, as she was working at the Red Cross Blood Bank situated at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Jail Road, Raipur. In such circumstances, it was not possible for her to reside at the matrimonial house situated at Village Gudguda, Danveer Bhamashah Chowk, Kurud, District Dhamtari. Therefore, after the marriage, the applicant and respondent No.1 started residing in a rented house belonging to Satish Devangan, situated at Street No. 3, behind 3 Dhelabai Sonkar Hostel, Saket Vihar, New Changorabhata, District Raipur (C.G.). 4. Allegations made by respondent No.1: (a) That respondent No.1 alleged in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below that after six months of marriage, the applicant and his family members started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry. It was further alleged that the applicant used to return home intoxicated and frequently quarrel with her. She further alleged that the applicant demanded dowry, stating that her father was 8nancially sound and employed in a government job, yet had not given items such as a gold chain and a car. Similar allegations were made against her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law. (b) It was further alleged that even after the birth of respondent No.2, there was no change in the behaviour of the applicant and his family members. (c) It was alleged that the applicant retained the ATM passbook of respondent No.1 and sold her ornaments. (d) It was further alleged that the applicant and respondent No.1 started residing at Changorabhata, Raipur, in the house of the applicant’s elder maternal aunt, and thereafter the applicant began living separately. (e) It was alleged that in a social meeting held on 08.05.2018, the applicant was 8ned Rs. 15,000/- and it was declared that a divorce had taken place between the parties. Respondent No.1 also made complaints before the Women’s Police Station and the Superintendent of Police. (f) It was averred by respondent No.1 that she is a housewife and dependent upon her father. She further alleged that the applicant is an engineer having his own oBce where he performs architectural work and 4 earns Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was also alleged that he works under Mr. Inder Talreja at Samvet Shikhar Building and earns an additional Rs. 25,000/- per month. On these grounds, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 5. Contrary to the averments made by respondent No.1, she is working as a nurse at the Red Cross Blood Bank and was earning approximately Rs. 13,000/- per month. In addition, she was earning approximately Rs. 52,963/- annually by undertaking private nursing work. After marriage, the behaviour of respondent No.1 changed drastically. Due to the applicant’s unemployment, respondent No.1 became egoistic and started behaving maliciously towards the applicant. She started abusing the applicant using 8lthy language, calling him a beggar and comparing him unfavourably with one Hitesh Chandrakar. She also stated on several occasions that she had committed a mistake by marrying the applicant. It is pertinent to mention that in April 2017, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house, taking all her belongings along with her. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the applicant went to reside at his in-laws’ house. However, after a few days, the applicant was insulted and forcibly ousted from the house by Respondent No.1 and her father. The applicant also participated in the social meeting of the Sahu Samaj with regard to the present dispute, wherein respondent No.1 categorically stated that she did not wish to continue the marital relationship and sought divorce. 6. Subsequently, the respondents 8led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2018, which was partly allowed by the learned Family Court, directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.2. Thereafter, the present applicant 8led his reply setting forth his version 5 and arguments; however, the learned Family Court, without properly considering the same, passed the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and on facts and is, therefore, unsustainable. He also submits that respondent No.1 had no suBcient cause to live separately and was never subjected to any physical or mental cruelty by the applicant or his family members. Respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home considering the applicant to be unemployed and being self-suBcient herself. Such conduct squarely attracts the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., disentitling her from maintenance. He further submits that the respondent No.1 is a quali8ed and registered nursing professional, gainfully employed and capable of maintaining herself, yet deliberately suppressed her income and falsely claimed to be a housewife to obtain the maintenance order. The applicant was a student during the proceedings and is presently undergoing internship/training, which cannot be treated as regular employment or a stable source of income. He also submits that the direction to pay maintenance causes undue 8nancial hardship to the applicant, who is unemployed, indebted, and has no regular income, while the respondent-wife is earning. The maintenance awarded in favour of respondent No.1 is unnecessary, unjust, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 6 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek