1 2025:CGHC:38880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 596 of 2023 Smt. Anusuiya Yadav W/o Rahul Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Maharana Pratap Nagar Chowk, Nagar Nigam Colony, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rahul Yadav S/o Kamal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Choubey Colony, Sarkanda Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 14/03/2023 and direct Non Applicant to pay monthly maintenance to the Applicant, in the interest of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-.with the intent that she has stated in her application that marriage was solemnized by Hindu Rituals, between the applicant and non-applicant on 29/05/2019 and no child was born from their wedlock. It is further stated by the applicant that the Non applicant and his parents tortured and assaulted the applicant for dowry and at present the applicant is residing separately from the non applicant with her father, but the non applicant is not giving single penny for her maintenance. Due to lack of financial hardships, the applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance. 4. In defence, the Non applicant filed reply before the learned Family Court, on 15/06/2022 whereby asserted that, all the averments made by the applicant are denied being false and frivolous. The Non applicant stated in his reply that the applicant is Post-Graduate and an educated person whose education and upbringing was done in Bilaspur. Further she is residing in his father's house who was a Government Servant and she can very well live her life and earn. The non-applicant specifically denied that he is having a job but he was having a job earlier and now having no independent source of income. It is further submitted that the she left the house of non- applicant without any sufficient cause. It is also submitted that the applicant has registered an F.I.R. u/s 498 against the Non-applicant and his parents and they were arrested for that and their reputation 3 has also been effected. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance from the Non-applicant. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 14.03.2023, whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any sufficient cause she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the llearned Family Court failed to appreciate that the Non applicant and his parents harassed the applicant for dowry many times and demanded for Rs. 2 Lakh and a Car. The applicant has registered an F.I.R. u/s 498 A of I.P.C. at Mahila Thana, Bilaspur on 20/12/2021 against the Non- applicant and his parents for harassing and torturing the non- applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is dependent on her father who is retired and she don't have any independent source of income. He has also failed to appreciate that the applicant has valid reason to live separate from the Non-applicant. The learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that she don't have a valid reason to live separate from Non-applicant but she has a valid reason as Non-applicant and his parents used to harass and torture the applicant for dowry. He further submits that due to harassment and torture, health of the applicant was getting bad. She made a complaint before the Mahila Thana on 07/10/2021 and after that counselings were held on 08/10/2021, 21/10/2021 and 12/11/2021 4 between applicant and Non-applicant wherein Non-applicant had specifically denied living with the applicant. In order to come to the conclusion that applicant is living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause there was no material on record before the learned Family Court. The consultation before Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra and registration of F.I.R. on the complaint of the applicant against her husband itself shows that Non-applicant (Husband) has created such circumstances that it could not have been expected from the applicant or any woman to live with her husband in the fear and threat of her life and limb as well as the mental harassment that she was going through she could not have sustain the same. Hence the order passed by learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to set aside with a direction to Non-applicant to pay the allowance for maintenance to the applicant (Wife) herein. 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 parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any 5 justifiable or sufficient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 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