1 2025:CGHC:36867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 269 of 2024 Smt. Jyoti Tiwari W/o Vivek Kumar Tiwari Aged About 27 Years At Present R/o Village - Kochera, Thana / Tehsil - Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vivek Kumar Tiwari S/o Jeewan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Achholi, Thana / Tahsil - Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and maintenance amount may kindly be allowed suitably, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent are husband ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.31 10:34:22 +0530 2 and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2020 as per the customs prevailing in their community. It is further averred that due to harassment by the respondent, the applicant was compelled to live separately. The respondent neither took care of the applicant nor provided any amount for her maintenance. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2022, claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself. The respondent is employed in a government job at NMDC, earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month. He also possesses agricultural land and a house, from which he earns Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 lakhs annually. Despite having sufficient means, he has not provided any financial support to the applicant, who is living in extremely poor conditions. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent. He appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his written statement, denying the averments made in the application. He contended that the applicant is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. The applicant examined herself and proved the facts mentioned in her application. The respondent also examined himself. However, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the application. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. He submits that learned trial Court erred in holding that the applicant is living in her parental home without any reasonable cause, whereas the evidence clearly shows that due to 3 harassment by the respondent, she was compelled to live separately. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s case in its proper perspective. The applicant’s statement is sufficient to establish that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause for her to reside separately. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record and has erred in concluding that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is not entitled to maintenance. He further submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the income of the respondent, the applicant is justifiably entitled to receive maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the applicant, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the 4 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek