1 2025:CGHC:35727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 372 of 2023 Smt. Pragati Pradhan W/o Shri Prakash Pradhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Naila, Ward No.05, Police Station Naila, Temporary Address Near Green River School Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Prakash Pradhan S/o Shri Vishram Pradhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Police Station Naila, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Trivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed Shri Vivek Kumar Tiwari, Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, in Case No. 95/2022, and the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to allow the application under section 125(4) of the code preferred by the petitioner, in the ends of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Facts of the case are that both applicant (wife) and the non- applicant (husband) belong to the Suryavanshi caste and are governed by Hindu law. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.07.2021 at village Janjgir, according to Hindu rites and rituals, including the Saptapadi (seven sacred rounds around the fire). The Gauna ceremony also took place on the same day. After marriage, the applicant began residing at her matrimonial home in Naila and started her marital life with the non-applicant. According to the applicant, about 10 days after the marriage, the non-applicant began taunting her, saying that her family had failed to give a motorcycle and ₹50,000/- in cash as dowry and had provided inferior-quality items. When the applicant tried to explain that her parents were poor and gave what they could afford, the non- applicant allegedly started abusing her verbally and physically. Tolerating this harassment for the sake of her future, she continued to stay in the matrimonial home. On 03.04.2022, around 10:00 PM, the non-applicant allegedly came home drunk, demanded dowry again, abused her, and physically assaulted her by pulling her hair and hitting her. He allegedly stated that she would only be allowed to stay if her parents gave him a motorcycle, and then threw her out of the house. The applicant informed her parents and brother about the incident, after which her brother Naresh came to her matrimonial home. Even in his presence, the non-applicant allegedly continued to abuse and threaten the applicant with death and asked her to leave. Consequently, her brother took her back to her parental 3 home, where she has been living since then in a dependent condition. It is further alleged that the non-applicant has neither contacted her since the incident nor made any arrangements for her maintenance. The applicant is unemployed and has no source of income. In contrast, the non-applicant works as a painter, earning approximately ₹500/- per day (₹15,000 per month). He also owns about 4 acres of agricultural land in village Naila, from which he earns around ₹2,00,000/- annually. Therefore, the applicant has requested a monthly maintenance amount of ₹10,000/- from the non-applicant. 3. In his reply, the non-applicant has denied all the allegations except for the admitted facts of marriage and caste. He states that after the Holi festival, on 20.03.2022, he took the applicant to her parental home in village Bhatapara, Janjgir. After staying there for 4-5 days, he asked her to return with him to Naila, but she allegedly refused without any valid reason. The non-applicant further claims that he visited her parental home again on 15.05.2022, along with some members of the community, to bring her back, but the applicant refused to come. He claims to have made multiple efforts to bring her back, but she has continued to refuse without any sufficient reason. He maintains that he is willing to keep the applicant and take care of her. He also states that the applicant is capable of maintaining herself as she knows tailoring and embroidery. Regarding his own income, he asserts that he does whitewashing and house painting work, earning only ₹250 per day, and does not get work every day—his monthly income is about ₹4,000/-. 4 Additionally, his father owns only 0.5 acres of land, received through partition from his brothers, yielding only 6 sacks of rice annually. Hence, he prays that the applicant’s maintenance application be dismissed. 4. In support of her application, the applicant examined witnesses: Herself (PW-1: Smt. Pragati Pradhan), Same Lal (PW-2), Neera Suryavanshi (PW-3), Kaliram alias Heera Kali (PW-4) and on the other hand, the non-applicant examined Prakash Pradhan (DW-1), Milan Prasad (DW-2). 5. The learned Family Court concerned considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 dismissed the application of the applicant on the ground that she has not succeeded in proving her case. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred the instant revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidences available on record and has erroneously drawn a conclusion and has rejected the application under section 125(4) of the code preferred by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has specifically stated that the non-applicant use to assault the applicant and due to that reason the applicant is residing at a different place. The non- applicant is a painter by profession and earns around Rs. 15,000/- per month. He has also certain ancestral properties from which he is getting his earnings. The applicant has no source of income and she is not literate to earn her livelihood therefore she has claimed maintenance from her husband to fulfill her routine needs. The 5 learned Family Court has wrongly dismissed the claim of the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, the Family Court has rightly concluded that the applicant failed to prove essential elements necessary to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be held entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. The Family Court, by carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence, has taken a lawful and justified decision by dismissing the maintenance claim of the applicant. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal