Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 782 of 2023 Hitendra Kumar Sahu S/o. Ishwarlal Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Super E - 518, Near Wahaliwal Ground, C.D. Type, Cseb Colony Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant 1 - Rashmi Sahu W/o. Hitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o. House No. 161, Ward No. 20, Adarsh Nagar, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abhinav Sahu, S/o. Hitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 11 Years R/o. House No. 161, Ward No. 20, Adarsh Nagar, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Through Natural Legal Guardian Rashmi Sahu, W/o. Hitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 36 Years. ... Non-applicants For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Md. Rahul Ameen Memon, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.07.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Md. Rahul Ameen Memon, learned counsel for the non- applicants. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, passed in case of "Rashmi Sahu and Anr. v/s Hitendra Kumar Sahu", whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 5000-5000 total Rs. 10,000/- (passed by JMFC, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon) to 10,000-10,000 total Rs. 20,000/- per month, may kindly be set-aside with regard to payment of maintenance amount to the non- applicant No.1/wife, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 07.05.2011, and they have a son, non-applicant No. 2, Abhinav. non-applicant No. 1 alleged that the applicant subjected her to harassment and dowry demands, even after the birth of their child, and ultimately sent her to her parental home, where she has been residing since 2015. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹30,000 per month for herself and ₹20,000 for her son, claiming she is 3 unemployed and the child is studying in KG-2. The applicant denied the allegations, asserting that non-applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home without cause, earns ₹10,000 monthly, and her father receives a pension of ₹50,000, while he made repeated efforts to reconcile. The Family Court, by order dated 21.11.2022, directed payment of ₹5,000 per month each to non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2, considering the applicant’s income of about ₹70,000. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, enhanced the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month each for the wife and son, which the applicant now challenges as illegal and excessive. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, statements, and evidence presented by both parties. The applicant consistently stated that he was ill-treated and pressured by the non-applicant and her family to leave his own house and reside with them, which was not duly considered. There is no sufÏcient material on record to establish that the non-applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by the applicant or his family members; hence, she had no valid reason to live separately and keep the child away from the applicant. The Family Court and the revisional court overlooked that the non-applicant has lodged a false case under Section 498-A IPC and is herself earning about ₹10,000 per month, thereby not being wholly dependent on the applicant. The courts also ignored the principles laid down by the 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha regarding mandatory afÏdavits of disclosure of income and assets. Moreover, the non- applicant has not produced credible evidence of the applicant’s income or her alleged ill-treatment and has not come with clean hands before the courts. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution, not to award maintenance to a wife who voluntarily refuses to live with her husband without sufÏcient cause. The trial courts further failed to consider that the non-applicant is capable of earning, owns a sewing machine, and can sustain herself, while the applicant made repeated efforts, including approaching community forums like the Sahu Samaj, to reconcile, which were disregarded by the non-applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and financial capacities of both parties, rightly awarded maintenance of ₹5,000 per month each to non-applicant No. 1 (wife) and non-applicant No. 2 (son), keeping in view the applicant’s income and the reasonable needs of the dependents. The court 5 correctly found that despite the applicant’s denial of allegations, the non-applicants were compelled to reside separately and required financial support for sustenance and the child’s education. Furthermore, upon revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after due assessment of the applicant’s earning capacity and rising cost of living, justifiably enhanced the maintenance to ₹10,000 per month each for the wife and the child, ensuring adequate relief to meet their genuine needs. Thus, the orders passed are fair, reasonable. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a 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