For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the
impugned judgement dated dated 07.02.2026
passed by Hon'ble Judge, Family Court,
Balod, District Balod (C.G.), passed in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 201/2025,
RAHUL
DEWANGAN may kindly be set-aside only in respect of
Digitally grant of maintenance to the respondent/ wife
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN herein."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/wife filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself
and Rs. 10,000/- per month for her minor daughter, stating that her
marriage with the applicant Ashish Sahu was solemnized on
18.04.2024 at Tehsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.), and a daughter
was born out of the wedlock on 20.04.2025. It was alleged that soon
after marriage the applicant expressed unwillingness towards the
marriage, maintained relations with another woman, and along with
his family members subjected the respondent to harassment and
cruelty in connection with dowry demands, pressurized her for
abortion, and ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial home on
20.01.2025, since when she has been residing with her parents.
The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended
that the respondent was having an affair, misbehaved with his aged
parents, and voluntarily left the matrimonial home, he further stated
that she is a graduate earning Rs. 8,000-10,000/- per month
through tailoring work, whereas he earns Rs. 24,000/- per month
with certain deductions and has to maintain his aged parents. Upon
appreciation of the evidence, the learned Court, vide impugned
judgment dated 07.02.2026, held that the applicant, being the
husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, despite
having sufficient earning capacity, neglected to maintain them, and
accordingly partly allowed the application, directing the applicant to
pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and
Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of order.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the
present revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court
below has failed to properly appreciate the material available on
record and has erroneously concluded that the respondent was
subjected to mental and physical cruelty, including allegations of
dowry demand and threats, whereas no cogent or reliable evidence
has been adduced to substantiate such claims, and the bare
perusal of the statements on record does not support the averments
made by the respondent so as to constitute a valid ground for living
separately under Section 125 CrPC. It is further submitted that the
learned Court has not considered the fact that the respondent is a
graduate and capable of earning sufficient income for her
maintenance. It is contended that the impugned order has been
passed in disregard of the well-settled principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha and that the same is
perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the true spirit and object of
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the
learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and
evidence on record and has passed a well-reasoned and lawful
order dated 07.02.2026. The learned Court, after considering the
marriage between the parties, the birth of the minor daughter, and
the material placed on record regarding the income and earning
capacity of the applicant, has correctly held that the applicant, being
the legally wedded husband of respondent No.1 and father of
respondent No.2, is under a statutory as well as moral obligation to
maintain them. The learned Court has duly considered the rival
contentions of both parties and, upon proper evaluation of the
evidence, found that the respondents were unable to maintain
themselves and that the applicant had neglected to provide
maintenance despite having sufficient means. The quantum of
maintenance awarded, i.e., Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent
No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2, is just,
reasonable and commensurate with the status and income of the
applicant.
6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicant 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
