1 2025:CGHC:25130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 575 of 2017 Smt. Savitri Chandrakar W/o Yugal Kishore Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years At Present R/o Through Father Shri Mohan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Bemcha, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Yugal Kishore Chandrakar S/o Shri Laxman Singh Chandrakar Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No. 1- E Street No. 09, Sector 05, Post Office Civic Center Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure R-1), passed by Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) Misc. Criminal Case No. 38/2015 and awarded a maintenance in sum of Rs. 25,000/- as claimed before the Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Briefs facts of the case are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent; their marriage was solemnized in 2007 at village Bemcha, District Mahasamund (C.G.) as per Hindu customs and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They have a son, Sarvagya Chandrakar, who presently lives with the respondent. The respondent and his family have been harassing the applicant for dowry and subjecting her to cruelty, including physical assault, despite her continued efforts to live with them for the sake of their minor son. During her pregnancy, the applicant suffered from an ulcer, further worsening the respondent’s cruel behavior. On 06.03.2012, when she tried to visit her father’s house, she was brutally assaulted. Her attempt to lodge an FIR at Bhilai Nagar police station was unsuccessful as police treated it as a domestic matter. Due to persistent cruelty, the revisionist developed a brain tumor, became physically weak, and was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home on 12.01.2015 on false allegations about her character. She has since been residing with her parents and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which the Family Court dismissed without appreciating the facts. The applicant claimed Rs. 25,000/- per month for maintenance and 3 medical care, stating the respondent earns Rs. 70,000/- per month from his job and agricultural land. The respondent denied the allegations, alleged misconduct on part of the revisionist, and claimed an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Both parties led evidence before the Family Court, and the matter is pending decision regarding maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.03.2017, is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, thus liable to set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court wrongly dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the revisionist/wife was living separately without sufficient reason. The Court overlooked that Ex.P/1 shows the police advised approaching the Court under Section 155 Cr.P.C. despite reporting cruelty, and refusal to register an FIR cannot lead to the presumption that no cruelty occurred. The respondent made false allegations of an illicit relationship with Keur Bhushan, yet produced him as his own witness, exposing the baseless, pre-planned nature of the charge. Similarly, claims by DW-1 Jugal Kishore that the wife was caught sending messages or speaking to a boyfriend are imaginary, as even their own evidence shows she was unwell and caring for their minor son. The allegation about physical relations seen by neighbour Babulal is false, as Babulal was never examined. The respondent fabricated these stories to abandon the revisionist, though she is willing to live with him. The Family Court failed to consider her critical medical condition and inability to maintain herself, and wrongly applied Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. despite the 4 clear justification for her living separately. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery. In this case, it has been established that on 12.01.2015, one Keur Bhushan was caught from the applicant’s house and proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. The respondent admitted that before the incident he had no knowledge of Keur Bhushan, though his son stated that Keur Bhushan used to visit the applicant regularly and she also went out with him. There is no explanation as to how the respondent was unaware of this if his son knew. Evidence also shows that the respondent had arranged regular medical treatment for the applicant. The applicant is living separately from the respondent and alleges that she was thrown out on 12.01.2015 after being falsely accused of character issues. However, the evidence shows that Keur Bhushan was indeed found in her house on that date. While there is no conclusive proof that the applicant was continuously living in adultery, it is proven that she is living separately without sufficient cause and is therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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 information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan