##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:15320 KUNAL NAFR

DEWANGAN Digitally signed by

KUNAL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEWANGAN

CRR No. 455 of 2026 Bhirendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bodhan Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years

R/o Dhebar City, Bhatagaon, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus Smt. Neha Sahu W/o Bhirndra Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. F-4, Vrindavan Colony, Village- Tilda, Tahsil- Tilda, Distt.

Raipur (C.G.)

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate as well as Ms.

A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

02.04.2026

1. It is true that the present revision petition is barred by 17 days and

no separate application for condonation of delay has been filed by the applicant. However, considering that the delay is of a short duration, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay of

17 days in the interest of justice.

2. Accordingly, the delay of 17 days in filing the present revision

petition is hereby condoned.

2

3. Heard on admission.

4. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed in MCC No. 273/2025 between Bhirendra Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Nehal Sahu by 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) and direct the Family Court to make compliant in competent Court of law as per section 340 and 341 of Cr.P.C., 1973, in the interest of

justice.

5. Brief facts of the case are that it is not in dispute that the applicant

and the non-applicant are husband and wife. The non-applicant filed an application for maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No. 494/2022, wherein vide order dated 19.01.2023, maintenance of Rs. 17,000/- per month was granted to the non-applicant and Rs. 3,000/- per month to her daughter, totaling Rs. 20,000/- per month, payable by the applicant. The non- applicant, in her application as well as in the afÏdavit dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure A), stated that she has no source of income and is not employed anywhere and also declared that she is not an income tax payee. On the basis of such afÏdavit, the maintenance

order was passed.

6. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 340 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, along with documents such as TDS certificates, income tax return acknowledgements for Assessment Years 2022–23 and 2023–24, pay slips, and EPF passbook (Annexure B to D), to show

3

that the non-applicant was employed in Wipro Company. The learned Family Court, however, dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and further registered MCC Case No. 273/2025 on its own, instead of making a complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate as required under law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision has been

filed.

7. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant

has deliberately suppressed material facts regarding her employment and income and has obtained the maintenance order by filing a false afÏdavit. It is contended that despite being employed as a Software Engineer in Wipro Company, the non-applicant falsely stated in her afÏdavit (Annexure A) that she has no source of income and is not an income tax payee. The said afÏdavit is not only false and misleading but also amounts to suppression of material facts, which is punishable under law. It is further submitted that in Clause-3 of the declaration made in her afÏdavit, the non-applicant herself has admitted that making a false statement on oath is punishable under Section 199 read with Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, carrying punishment up to seven years with fine and for Section 209 IPC, punishment of two years with fine is prescribed, however, such admission has been completely ignored by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the docu