1 2025:CGHC:34950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 453 of 2020 Khushboo Das Wife Of Kailash Das, Daughter Of Milan Das Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Rajapara, Bagh Talab, Circuit House Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kailash Das Son Of Maalikram Das Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Brajrajnagar, Lamtibahar Odisha., Orissa ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F- 115/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact in this case that the applicant's marriage was solemnized about five years ago in Raigarh as per Hindu rites and customs, and from this union, they have a four-year-old son named Nikhil Das. Since the marriage, the respondent and his family members used to physically abuse her and demand dowry, snatching away her food plate and throwing it away. They would demand that she bring Rs.50,000/- from her parental home or earn money from somewhere else. The respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, making her extremely weak. They wouldn't allow her to talk to her parents or meet other people, preventing her from informing her parents about the abuse. When the applicant became very weak, the respondent and his family members sent her to her parental home in Raigarh during Raksha Bandhan in 2018, after discussing among themselves. As soon as the applicant reached her parental home, she informed her parents about the entire incident. However, the respondent physically abused her in front of her parents and demanded Rs.50,000/-, threatening to keep her only if she brought the money. He forcibly took away their four-year-old son. The applicant's parents attempted to reason with the respondent and his family members on several occasions, but they refused to accept the applicant without dowry and return their minor child. The applicant filed a written complaint with the City Kotwali police station and higher authorities on 3 November 15, 2018. The respondent abandoned the applicant due to his illegal demand for dowry. The respondent works in the Brajrajnagar coal mine, earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month, while the applicant is entirely dependent on him for her maintenance. Due to the respondent abandonment, the applicant is forced to live a life of destitution. Therefore, the applicant requests that the respondent pay her Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply denied the allegations as alleged by the applicant. The Family Court after appreciated the materials and evidence adduced by the parties has rejected by application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant in her evidence has clearly established that the respondent and his family were physically and mentally harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. She further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was unable to maintain herself and was dependent upon her father, on the other hand, despite having sufficient means the respondent / husband is neglecting to maintain her. She also submits that the Family Court has adopted a prejudicial approach for the reason that the date of subsequent letter / application before the higher police authorities and date of application under Section 125 of CrPC are on even date i.e. on 4 15.11.2018, ignoring the fact that initial complaint before the local police, was made on the very date of incident i.e. on 22.10.2018. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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 observing that the applicant has failed to establish that she is living separately from her husband for sufficient reasons, therefore the Family Court concluded that she is not entitled for grant of maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil