1 2025:CGHC:31312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 517 of 2020 1 - Smt. Jayanti Goswami W/o Takeshwar @ Satish Giri Goswami Aged About 30 Years Caste- Goswami, Occupation- Housewife, R/o Village- Khamharmuda, Police Chowki- Bhimkhoj Khallari, Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Village Mahadevpali, Police Station- Chandrapur, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Prachi D/o Takeshwar @ Satish Giri Goswami Aged About 7 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Jayanti Goswami, R/o Village- Khamharmuda, Police Chowki- Bhimkhoj Khallari, Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Village Mahadevpali, Police Station- Chandrapur, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Ruchi Goswami D/o Takeshwar @ Satish Giri Goswami Aged About 6 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Jayanti Goswami, R/ o Village- Khamharmuda, Police Chowki- Bhimkhoj Khallari, Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Village Mahadevpali, Police Station- Chandrapur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tarkeshwar @ Satish Giri S/o Late Doman Prakash Giri Goswami Aged About 36 Years Caste- Goswami, Occupation- Cultivator And Clerk, R/o Village- Khamharmuda, Police Chowki- Bhimkhoj Khallari, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and award/order maintenance in favour of applicants to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present revision arises out of the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the maintenance application filed by the applicants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, and their marriage was solemnized on 29.06.2005. Out of the wedlock, Applicants No.2 and 3 (children) were born. It was alleged that after marriage, Applicant No.1 was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment by the non-applicant and his family members over dowry demands, 3 despite her family giving household items and ornaments as per their capacity. The harassment escalated over time, and in January 2012, the non-applicant allegedly ousted the applicants from the matrimonial home, following which he also solemnized a second marriage. Since then, the applicants have been residing at the parental home of Applicant No.1, and despite having agricultural land and sufficient income, the non-applicant failed to provide any maintenance. Although interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- was granted by the Family Court on 13.11.2018, the final application was dismissed on the ground that Applicant No.1 was living separately without sufficient cause, which led to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, erroneous, and unsustainable in law, as it failed to appreciate the material facts and legal principles governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court erred in denying maintenance to Applicant No.1 despite clear evidence that she was ousted from the matrimonial home and that the non- applicant subsequently performed a second marriage facts which constitute sufficient and justifiable grounds for her to live separately. No efforts were made by the non-applicant to bring the applicant back, further strengthening her claim. The Court also ignored the fact that Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and, as a woman, has essential personal needs. Additionally, the learned Court gravely erred in not granting maintenance to Applicants No.2 4 and 3, who are minor school-going children requiring basic necessities such as food, education, clothing, and healthcare. Being the legally wedded wife and children of the non-applicant, the applicants are entitled to maintenance, and the non-applicant, having sufficient means, is duty-bound to support them. The impugned order thus deserves to be set aside and the maintenance amount duly enhanced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Circuit Court, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order dated 10.02.2020 after considering the facts and evidence presented by both parties. It correctly observed that Applicant No.1 is living separately without any sufficient and justifiable cause. The allegations of cruelty and harassment were not substantiated by reliable evidence, and no concrete proof was produced to support the claims of dowry demands or ill-treatment by the non-applicant or his family members. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the non-applicant has pointed out that, in pursuance of the order passed in FAM No. 267/2018, vide order dated 26.04.2023, the applicants have already been granted a maintenance total amount of ₹15,000/- in 5 ₹5,000/- each to the children and ₹5,000/- to the wife which reflects that adequate financial support has been ensured. In the absence of convincing evidence showing neglect or refusal to maintain, and without proving lawful justification for living separately, the dismissal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the learned Family Court is just, reasonable, and does not warrant interference. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan