Sai Nagar Urla, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh v. Domendra Sahu S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 845 of 2023 1. Smt. Lali Sahu W/o Domendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 58, Sai Nagar Urla, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Moksha Sahu S/o Domendra Sahu Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Lali Sahu (Applicant No. 1), R/o Ward No. 58, Sai Nagar Urla, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Deeshu Sahu S/o Domendra Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through
Legal Reasoning
Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Lali Sahu (Applicant No. 1), R/o Ward No. 58, Sai Nagar Urla, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh .. Applicants versus Domendra Sahu S/o Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Banbarad, Ahiwara, Tahsil Ahiwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:19 +0530 For Applicants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. ... Respondent For Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, 2 Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 777/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the applicants — wife and minor children of the respondent seeking maintenance. It was pleaded that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 06-03-2017, and out of the wedlock, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children) were born. The applicant alleged that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands by the respondent and his relatives. She was branded as a "Tonhi" (witch) by her in-laws, abused, and had once lodged a police complaint, resulting in proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the CrPC. Due to continuous harassment, she was compelled to reside with her parents. She further stated that her children are school- going and have regular expenses. She also alleged that her husband threatened her and has neglected to maintain them. Claiming she is unable to maintain herself, she sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000, stating that the respondent earns Rs. 30,000 per month and also has income from agricultural land. Before the Family Court, the respondent initially appeared and, by mutual consent, agreed to pay Rs. 3,000 per month as interim maintenance. This was granted vide order dated 04-10-2021. However, he subsequently remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte by order dated 29-03-2022. 4. As no reply was filed by the respondent, the case proceeded ex-parte. Applicant No.1 examined herself as A.W.-1 and submitted documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. However, the Family Court, by order dated 25-07-2022, rejected the application, holding that the applicant failed to 3 prove she had sufficient reason to reside separately from her husband. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of the applicant No.1 who is the wife of the respondent, and applicant Nos.2 and 3 who are the son of the respondent aged about 9 years and 6 years respectively, only on the ground that the no evidence has been laid by the wife to prove the fact that she is residing with sufficient reasons, but the application for grant of maintenance with respect of applicant Nos.2 and 3 was also rejected. It is further submitted that the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor son of the respondent aged about 9 years and 6 years respectively is also required to be maintained by the respondent. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal and liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 777/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicants/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent is a physically and financially capable person, he works at the Rolling Mill 7. 8. 4 in Hathkhoj, and earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month, and excepting the same he also earns Rs. 5 lac per annum by agriculture work. Hence, the applicants had requested in application under Section 125 of CrPC to be provided Rs. 15,000/- per month each as monthly maintenance from the respondent. But, only on the ground that the applicant No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient reason, the learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance filed by the applicants. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that as applicant No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient reason, thus, the prayer for grant of maintenance with respect to the applicant No.1 is rejected and the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) is affirmed. Furthermore, as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 who are the minor sons of the applicant No.1 and respondent, and they are required to be maintained by the respondent who is their natural father, hence, it is directed that the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the applicant No.2 and Rs. 2,000/- is awarded to the applicant No.3, which shall be paid by the respondent per month as maintenance from 25th of August, 2025, and the same amount shall be paid by him on 10th day of every month, till the applicants No.2 and 3 attains the age of majority. Thus, the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 777/2021, with respect to the applicant Nos.2 and 3, is hereby set-aside. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 11. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti