Chattisgarh High Court
Bhirendra Kumar Sahu vs Smt. Neha Sahu on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15320
KUNAL
DEWANGAN NAFR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
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 1st 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 affidavit 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 affidavit, 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 affidavit. It is contended that despite being employed as a Software Engineer in Wipro Company, the non-applicant falsely stated in her affidavit (Annexure A) that she has no source of income and is not an income tax payee. The said affidavit 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 affidavit, 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 documents available on record, including income tax returns, TDS certificates, pay slips, and EPF passbook, as referred to in Para-6 of the impugned order, as well as subsequent income tax returns of 4 later years, clearly establish that the non-applicant was earning and was an income tax assessee, but the same were deliberately suppressed by her in the affidavit. Despite this, the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and illegally dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the learned Family Court has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Sections 340 and 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which cast a duty upon the Court to make a complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Instead of adopting the prescribed procedure, the learned Family Court itself registered MCC No. 273/2025, despite having no jurisdiction or criminal power to punish the non-applicant, rendering the said action wholly without authority and illegal. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned Family Court with a direction to file a proper complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate, along with all relevant documents including Annexure A to D and the record of MCC No. 273/2025, for a just and proper decision of the case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision.
9. Upon perusal of the record and the impugned order, it is evident that the non-applicant had filed an affidavit dated 17.06.2022 in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Others (Appeal No. 730/2020), wherein she disclosed her educational qualification as B.E. and her occupation 5 as a homemaker and specifically stated that she was not employed and had no monthly income. The documents relied upon by the applicant, namely pay slips of Wipro Limited, income tax returns, Form-16, TDS statements, and EPF records, pertain to the period prior to the year 2022. The said documents only indicate that the non-applicant was employed during earlier years and had income at that point of time. However, no material has been brought on record to establish that on the date of filing of the affidavit i.e. 17.06.2022, or thereafter, the non-applicant was in employment or earning any income. In absence of any contemporaneous document relating to the relevant period, it cannot be conclusively inferred that the non- applicant had made a false statement on oath or had intentionally suppressed material facts at the time of filing the affidavit.
10. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated this aspect and has recorded a finding that the documents filed by the applicant do not substantiate the allegation of false affidavit or perjury at the relevant point of time. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the said finding warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The learned Family Court has rightly held that the essential ingredients for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not made out in the present case.
6
12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.
13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal