2026:CGHC:9219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 277 of 2026

1 - Smt Hulsi Sahu W/o Pitambar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kuthrel, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Ku. Roshni Sahu D/o Pitambar Sahu Aged About 4 Years Through Mother Shrimati Hulsi Sahu, On Behalf Of Applicant No. 2, R/o Village AKD KUE H WMI AAL NRES G H AN DsAKD iKU i E gg Hn WM iteI a AA dL l NR Eby S G yH AN Kuthrel, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant(s)

versus Pitambar Sahu S/o Pukhuram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhimkanhar, P.S. Suregaon, Tehsil Dhondilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

23 /02/2026

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by learned 1^st Additional Principal Family JUdge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.159/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded wife and husband, whose marriage was solemnized on 25.03.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, alleging that within 3–4 months of marriage, the respondent left her at her parental home while she was pregnant and thereafter refused to take her back despite efforts made by her family and community members. She gave birth to a daughter and informed the respondent, but he neither visited nor accepted the child and allegedly denied paternity. It is further alleged that when the applicant attempted to return to her matrimonial home, she was not allowed to enter and was driven away. Consequently, she lodged a complaint at the Women’s Police Station and sought maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondent filed his written statement denying all allegations and contended that the applicant’s conduct was aggressive from the beginning of the marriage and that she was taken back by her father within two days. He denied having any physical relationship with her after marriage and disputed the paternity of applicant No.2, alleging that the applicant was in a relationship with one Niraj Kumar Sahu and that the child was not his. He further stated that he works as a mason earning minimum wages and that false complaints were lodged against him. Thereafter the learned Family Court, by order dated 15.12.2025, partly allowed the application. While holding on the basis of a DNA report that applicant No.2 is the biological daughter of the respondent and directing him to pay maintenance to the child, the Court rejected the claim of maintenance of applicant No.1 by invoking Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., observing that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Despite recording that the respondent’s income was approximately Rs.20,000-25,000 per month and that applicant No.1 had no independent source of income, her claim was dismissed. Hence, the criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts on record and the settled principles governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court gravely erred in invoking Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. without any cogent or conclusive evidence to establish that Applicant No.1 was living in adultery or had refused to reside with the respondent without sufficient cause. Mere allegations or isolated statements cannot amount to strict proof of adultery, which is a mandatory requirement for attracting the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding, on the basis of the DNA report and admission of the r