1 2025:CGHC:28144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 561 of 2018 Smt. Veena Sahu W/o Shiv Rekha Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o- Anupam Nagar Ward No. 19 Behind Stadium, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shiv Rekha Sahu S/o Ram Ratan Sahu Aged About 47 Years Head Master Gov. Primer School Pelimeta, Presently Residence- Basantpur Ward No. 38, Ranisagar Marg, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya S. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya S. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.03.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 104/2009, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of monthly maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent in May, 1984. After solemnization of marriage, out of wedlock, three children were born to them, one daughter and two sons. In the year 1991, the marriage of brother of respondent took place after which the marriage of the applicant was ruined. In year 2005 the applicant moved an application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, which was dismissed as at that point of time it was found by the learned court that the applicant is able to maintain herself. Thereafter again in year 2009 the applicant moved second application for grant of maintenance was filed, which was decided on 23.02.2013 and amount of Rs 4000/- was granted as maintenance. The respondent filed a CRR No.229/2013 before this Court challenging the grant of maintenance. This Court vide order dated 22/11/2013 allowed the revision and remitted back the case. The learned family Court has again passed the impugned order dated 08/03/2018 and rejected the application of the applicant. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No.1 in its second application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she is unable to maintain herself and totally dependent upon her brother and father. The situation of the applicant has also 3 changed as even though she being a lawyer, she is briefless. It was never the case of the applicant that she has disowned the respondent. The respondent has accepted in his deposition and cross examination that he is living separately and is also contesting case for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage. The Court has also ignored that it is only the applicant who was bearing the expenses of their children without any help of the respondent. The applicant also has deposed specifically that the nature of earning of applicant has changed. It is submitted furthermore that the respondent who was working as government teacher earning 18-19000 earlier is now getting more than 40,000/- as salary. Merely because the applicant is an advocate it does not mean that she is earning surplus. At present she is a briefless lawyer which she herself has deposed. It is submitted that the father of the applicant has also recently died and as such it has become more harsher for her to earn livelihood. The learned Family Court, without application of mind, without appreciating the facts narrated by the applicant herein, without appreciating the grounds raised by her, in a very mechanical manner, dismissed her application of grant of maintenance, therefore, the deserves be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, the applicant (wife) is an advocate and have obtained much more experience of advocacy with passage of time, so the applicant cannot be considered as dependent upon the respondent and by considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil