1 2025:CGHC:37340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 405 of 2025 Smt. Vaishali Sahu W/o Krishnasharan Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Hardi, P.S.- Balauda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), At Present R/o Near New Railway Colony, Amraiyapara, Korba, Distrtict- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Krishnasharan Sahu S/o Dukhiram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Hardi (Mayamaya ), P.S. Balauda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Prahalad Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Prahalad Panda, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 180/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had filed an application RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Section 144 of the BNSS for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the respondent, that applicant and respondent had solemnized marriage according to Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom on 22.04.2023. The applicant has claimed that after some time of the marriage, the respondent harassed and tortured the applicant physically and mentally, and the respondent pressurized upon the applicant to left her matrimonial home, and the respondent does not like to the applicant for living together and respondent has get out the to the applicant form the matrimonial house by committing marpeet. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home and is living separately. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant left the matrimonial house due to the physical and mental cruelty done by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. 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 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 180/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, 3 rejected the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar