Smt. Chandradevi Sahu vs Bhupendra Sahu
2026 Latest Caselaw 1290 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Chandradevi Sahu vs Bhupendra Sahu on 6 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                  1




                                                                2026:CGHC:15547
                                                                                 NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        CRR No. 457 of 2026

            1 - Smt. Chandradevi Sahu W/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years
            R/o Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg
            (C.G.)
            2 - Jiwansh Sahu S/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor
            Applicant No2 Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandradevi Sahu R/o
            Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg
            (C.G.)
            3 - Ku. Muskan D/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor
            Applicant No. 3 Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandradevi Sahu R/o
            Kailash Nagar, Station Chowck, Kumhari Tahsil- Paatan Distt- Durg
            (C.G.)
                                                                        ... Applicants
                                               versus
            Bhupendra Sahu S/o Raju Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House
            No.161, Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                       ... Respondent

For Applicants : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the

following prayer:

"It is prayed, therefore, that the Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated- 07.02.2026 passed by learned 3rd additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dist- Durg (C.G.) in M.C.C. No. 1116/2023 and enhance the amount as mentioned in the application filed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the interest of justice."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No. 1 is the

legally wedded wife of the respondent and out of their wedlock, they

have been blessed with two children, namely Jiwansh and Ku.

Muskan (applicant Nos. 2 and 3), the marriage between the parties

was solemnized on 28.04.2015 at Village Kampa, District

Mahasamund (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs,

and thereafter the applicant resided in her matrimonial home, where

after about one month, the respondent and his family members

allegedly started demanding dowry and subjected her to cruelty,

despite fulfillment of certain demands including a motorcycle by her

parents, the respondent is further alleged to have developed illicit

relations with other women, remained absent from home for

prolonged periods, neglected the applicant, and on being

complained against, the applicant was subjected to abuse and

harassment by her in-laws, even after the birth of the children and a

social settlement assuring improved conduct by the respondent, his

behaviour did not change and he allegedly continued his

relationship with one Sonam, and on being questioned, threatened

the applicant and eventually started residing separately with the

said woman, compelling the applicant to lodge complaints at Police

Station Kumhari, thereafter, on 26.08.2023, the applicant along with

her minor children filed an application under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/-

per month on the ground that the respondent has sufficient income

from a chicken shop and other sources and owns properties, upon

notice, the respondent appeared and contested the claim by filing

reply, and after recording evidence of both parties, the learned

Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded

maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant Nos. 2 and

3(1000-1000). Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the said

maintenance order, the present revision has been preferred by the

applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order

passed by the learned Court below is arbitrary, illegal and contrary

to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is

further submitted that the learned Court has committed a grave

error in holding that the applicant/wife failed to prove the income of

the respondent, despite the categorical admission of the non-

applicant's witness, namely Montu Yadav, who stated that he used

to work in the chicken shop of the respondent's father for a monthly

salary of Rs. 6,000/-, which clearly indicates the existence of a

running business and source of income. She further submits that

the learned Court further failed to appreciate that the respondent

himself admitted that the applicant No. 1 had lodged complaints at

Police Station Kumhari regarding his illicit relationship with one

Sonam, and had assured before the police that he would mend his

conduct and take proper care of his wife, which reflects his

misconduct and neglect. She also submits that the learned Family

Court also erred in not considering the specific contention of the

applicant that the respondent is earning Rs. 45,000/- to Rs.

50,000/- per month from his chicken shop, along with additional

income of Rs. 15,000/- per month from rent, and is also possessed

of immovable properties at various places, the learned Court below

has committed gross irregularity by ignoring the material evidence

and circumstances on record in support of the applicants, thereby

awarding an inadequate amount of maintenance. It is further

submitted that the Court further failed to consider that it is the

respondent who deserted the applicants without sufficient cause,

subjected the applicant to cruelty and dowry-related harassment,

and that the applicant/wife has no independent source of income

and is residing with and dependent upon her parents along with her

minor children, and despite such circumstances, no maintenance

has been awarded to the wife and only a meagre sum of Rs. 2,000/-

per month has been granted for both the children, which is wholly

insufficient in present times to meet even basic needs, and thus the

maintenance amount deserves to be suitably enhanced.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the

learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings,

evidence and material available on record, has rightly and

judiciously passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from

any illegality or perversity, the learned Court has properly

appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, including the

relationship between the parties, the allegations made by the

applicant, and the evidence led by both sides, and has exercised its

discretion in a fair and reasonable manner while determining the

quantum of maintenance, the learned Court has taken into account

the absence of cogent and reliable evidence regarding the exact

income of the respondent and has, therefore, awarded a just and

appropriate amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 1,000/- each) to

applicant Nos. 2 and 3, keeping in view the financial capacity of the

respondent and the needs of the minor children, and thus, the

impugned order being well-reasoned, balanced and in accordance

with law.

6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for

the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding

recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the

Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or

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 certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court

concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan