1 2025:CGHC:40563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 352 of 2024 Smt. Sahodra Banjare W/o Harishankar Banjare, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chhindbhog, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Harishankar Banjare S/o Dupchand Banjare, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Chhindbhog, Tahsil-Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 127/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that she and the respondent were married 21 years ago in accordance with customary rites and rituals. One daughter was born from their PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:23 +0530 2 wedlock, who is now 18 years old and residing with the applicant. The applicant alleged that the respondent and his parents demanded dowry and subjected her to physical abuse, leading her to file a complaint at the concerned police station. She further claimed that the respondent remarried another woman, and when she opposed it, she was subjected to further physical and mental torture. Despite attempts at reconciliation through social intervention, the efforts failed, and the applicant was forced to live separately with her daughter. The applicant also stated that due to the respondent’s mistreatment, she suffers from mental illness and is unable to work. She claimed that the respondent is financially well-off, earning approximately Rs.3,30,000 annually through agriculture and masonry work, yet he has failed to provide any financial support. Therefore, she sought Rs.30,000 per month as maintenance. 3. In response, the respondent denied all allegations except for the marriage and the birth of their daughter. He claimed he had cared for them properly and that the applicant left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. He requested dismissal of the application. After considering the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court proceeded with the case and ultimately dismissed the applicant’s application. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in dismissing the applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., despite the material and pleadings available on record supporting her claim. The Family Court failed to properly consider the applicant’s allegations of cruelty and 3 harassment by the respondent, which were duly proved. The impugned order is therefore unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. The applicant’s application for maintenance should have been allowed. The impugned order is based solely on suspicion and the uncorroborated oral statements of the respondent, contrary to the factual findings, and is thus bad in law. The respondent is an earning individual, receiving approximately Rs.3,00,000 annually from agricultural income and Rs.30,000 per month from masonry work. In contrast, the applicant is financially dependent on government schemes and is unable to sustain herself adequately. The Court failed to consider this disparity while deciding the matter. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 127/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the 4 statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti