Nafr High Court · 2022
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1103 of 2022 Mrs. Veena Sahu W/o Mr. Amit Sahu D/o Late Shri B.R. Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o H. No. 49, Durga Chowk, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001. versus ... Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Amit Sahu S/o Shri Yugal Kishore Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Employee, UBS Bank, Currently At Flat No. 17, Hales Prior, Calshot Street, London (U.K.) Pincode, Ni9jw. Having Permanent Address At House No. 581, B/Block, Budhram Basti Sonari, Jamshedpur, Sonari, East Singhbhum 831011 RAJSHEKHAR SONI (Jharkhand) Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI For Applicant : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate. For Respondent : None. ---- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. 2. Heard Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 172/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed the 2 application for maintenance which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 172/2022 before the learned family court and the respondent has filed the reply of this application of the applicant before the court and after hearing the parties, the learned family Court has allowed the interim application of the applicant and against the respondent. The applicant filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur which has been registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 172/2022 and finally decided on 09/09/2022 whereby the application of maintenance of the applicant have been allowed against the respondent and awarded the maintenance sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for maintaining herself. The applicant has contended in her application that after the marriage, the respondent was keeping her well and enjoying the married life, thereafter, the applicant was harassed/ill- treated by way of demand of dowry and committed the marpit with the applicant. The applicant has made the other allegation against the respondent regarding cruelty like that the respondent and his family members always abused her and used filthy language against her. Further, the applicant alleged that the respondent and his family members harassed/ill-treated of the applicant for demanding dowry and taunted with the life. Further the applicant alleged in her application that the respondent and his family members always made cruelty against her and she opposed, then the respondent threatened to the applicant Ultimately, the respondent had left the applicant and went to London alone. Further, the applicant contended in her application that on 16/03/2021. Her father was died by the Covid-19, the respondent has left the applicant and no one come to bring the applicant to her in laws 3 house. Further, the applicant contended in her application that she is not having source of income and she is completely depended upon her brother whereas the respondent is working UBS Bank and his income of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The applicant stated in her application that the respondent has not managed for her maintenance after living separately, therefore, the applicant prayed the maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- be awarded from the respondent per month. The applicant stated that the respondent was avoid to live with applicant due to which she resided with her brother, thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for maintaining herself and her application was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 172/2022 and by order dated 09/09/2022, the application of the applicant of the maintenance amount was allowed the application of applicant and awarded the maintenance sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the respondent. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court has allowed the application of the applicant for maintenance amount against the respondent i.e. Rs. 20,000/- which is not justified and reasonable cause because the 4 applicant who is the married wife of the respondent which is admitted facts of the case and she is residing separately from her husband being sufÏcient and reasonable cause and the respondent is receiving handsome salary from his job on which the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is not justified and reasonable as well as it not accordance with law prescribed for maintenance. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. 6. 7. 8. 9. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar