1 2025:CGHC:32624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 179 of 2021 Smt Malti Jaiswal W/o Shri Rampratap Jaiswal, Aged About 43 Years R/o Chandni Chowk, Bramhinpara Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Present Address Jorapara Ashoknagar, Near Om Nursing Home, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Rampratap Jaiswal S/o Siddhadayal Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Chandni Chowk, Bramhinpara Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.60/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact in this case that the applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on 12.05.1987, and a daughter was born out of their marital relationship. According to the application, the applicant lived happily with her in-laws for about 5 years. However, when she visited her parental home, the respondent did not come to bring her back. When she went to the respondent's house herself, she was physically abused and thrown out. The respondent has since taken a second wife and is living with her. The applicant is currently residing with her elderly parents in her parental home and has no source of income. On the other hand, the respondent earns Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture and vegetable business. He also rents out a shop near Neera Talkies, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent owns agricultural land in Katghora, some of which he has sold for Rs. 13,00,000/-, which he has deposited in a bank, earning a monthly interest of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply denied the allegations as alleged by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate the cruel treatment, torture and harassment 3 done on the applicant by the respondent, further without passing of any divorce degree from the concerned Court, the respondent performed second marriage to another lady and enjoying happily with her. He further submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the appellant has no other source of income to survive, she is currently jobless, she is facing financial crisis and her situation is deteriorating both mentally and physically. This suggests the appellant is in a vulnerable state and in need of support, potentially impacting the court's decision on maintenance or other relief. He also submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is suffering from some disease and is undergoing treatment for the same, but due to lack of finances, she is not getting the proper treatment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant analyzed evidence and concluded that the applicant (wife) has been living separately from the respondent 4 (husband) for the past 28-30 years. She has not shown any reasonable cause for living separately from the respondent. Moreover, the applicant herself has admitted that she has been earning and supporting herself. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Family Court found the applicant not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil