1 2025:CGHC:28621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 509 of 2019 Kajal Patel W/o Shri Sunil Patel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Lodhi Para Kanpa, Police Station Thankhamariya Tahsil Saja District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sunil Patel S/o Ramkhilawan @ Munna Patel Aged About 32 Years Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Mudparkala, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara (CG) in Criminal MJC KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No.211/2018, and consequently, allowing the application under Section 125 of CrPC of the applicant, grant her maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. As per averments in the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant/wife, after one year of marriage, the non-applicant started treating the applicant with cruelty by beating her and demanding 10 acres of land, Rs. 5 lacs and car as dowry and also threatened her of being killed if the matter is reported to the police. Even while she was carrying pregnancy, she was not provided with sufficient food as a result of which she suffered appendicitis, which was not got medically treated by the non-applicant and ultimately she suffered miscarriage. Though the applicant reported the matter to police where conciliation proceedings were initiated, she was sent to Sakhi Van Stop, Bemetara but the non-applicant declined to keep her with him. She further stated that she has no independent source of income whereas the non-applicant has 56 acres of land in his family, he has tractor, motorcycle and is earning Rs.10 lacs per annum and therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month from him. 4. In reply to the above application, the non-applicant contended that he has never committed any kind of cruelty with the applicant, no dowry as claimed by the applicant was ever demanded by him, 3 miscarriage of the applicant was not got done by the non-applicant; she is a modern woman, resides in her parental home for 15 days every month and also has illegal contacts with other boys. She was suffering from appendicitis before marriage and he stated that he is still ready to keep her. He denied having 56 acres of land, tractor, motorcycle and earning of Rs.10 lacs per annum. 5. The learned Family Court concerned considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 dismissed the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is living separately without any just and sufficient cause. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred the instant revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not proper appreciated the evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The learned Family Court has dismissed the maintenance application by observing that no complaint was ever made by the applicant to her community, she resided with the non-applicant well for one year and did not specifically mention the dates on which she was subjected to cruelty. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that in a case like the present one, the wife tries a lot to patch up the matter within the four corners of the house so that her near and dear ones should not get disturbed on coming to know of her sufferings. Further, it is not sometimes practically possible for the victim to narrate the sequence of events in a chronological order by mentioning the specific date and time of 4 the unfortunate incidents. Therefore, the dismissal of the applicant's application on the aforesaid ground, without realizing the ground realities, by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that while deciding the case of present nature, strict rule of evidence is not to be insisted upon and it has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. From the pleadings of the applicant and the evidence adduced by her in support thereof, it is quite clear that she was subjected to ill-treatment by the non-applicant to such an extent where her living with him became almost impossible and she had a danger to her life. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that the non-applicant belongs to a well-to-do family and has sufficient source of income whereas the applicant has no independent source of income and therefore, she is entitled for maintenance from her. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, illegal on all counts, and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal 5 Procedure Code, seeking a monthly maintenance amount of ₹10,000/- from the non-applicant/husband before the learned Family Court. After due appreciation of the evidence and documents brought on record by both parties, the learned Family Court rightly rejected the application. The Court observed that the applicant had been residing at her parental home without sufficient or justifiable cause and had failed to establish any instance of cruelty or misconduct on the part of the non-applicant. In view of the absence of cogent evidence substantiating the applicant’s claim and relying on settled legal principles, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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