1 2025:CGHC:37944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 13 of 2022 1. Smt. Priyanka Kesharwani W/o Sureshchand Tawri Aged About 34 Years D/o Shri Shyamsundar Kesharwani Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Priyanka Kesharwani, R/o In Front Of Shreya Computer, Bajrang Ward, Bhatapara, Tgahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Srthak Kesharwani S/o Late Maneesh Kumar Kesharwani Aged About 10 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Priyanka Kesharwani, R/o In Front Of Shreya Computer, Bajrang Ward, Bhatapara, Tgahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Sureshchand Tawri S/o Shankar Lal Tawri Aged About 36 Years R/o. Krishna Hardware Main Road, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.02 11:28:27 +0530 2 No.98/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 and the respondent are husband and wife. It is an admitted fact that their second marriage took place at Gayatri Temple, Rajnandgaon, on 29.03.2018 as per the customs prevailing in their community. It is further averred that due to the harassment by the respondent, applicant No. 1 started residing with her parents. The respondent has neither taken care of their son (applicant No. 2) nor provided any maintenance to the applicants. Consequently, applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2021, claiming ₹40,000 per month for her maintenance. It is also stated that the respondent runs a hardware shop and earns approximately ₹80,000 per month but has failed to provide any financial support to the applicants, who are living in destitution. Despite receiving notice, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and filed a written statement denying all the averments, including the fact of marriage, and contended that the applicant is not entitled to any maintenance. Applicant No. 1 examined herself and substantiated her claims, while the respondent merely filed his reply and led no evidence. However, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the application, even though applicant No. 1, having the status equivalent to that of a legally wedded wife, is entitled to maintenance of ₹40,000 per month. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar is bed, illegal perverse and contrary to law and evidence available on record and deserve to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has committed an 3 error in holding that the present applicant has not proof for living separately with reason, whereas it has clearly shown to the act of respondent/husband has not examine before learned Family Court. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the application of the applicant in proper perspective. The learned Family Court also erred in observing the facts brought by applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and also committed the error in holding that the applicant is not entitled to receive the amount of maintenance as she is the wife of the respondent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the income of the respondent, applicant No. 1 is entitled for maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it has been established that applicant No. 1 is residing separately at her parental home voluntarily and without sufficient cause. Therefore, in light of the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent merely on the basis of being his wife. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 4 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti