1 2025:CGHC:25082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 588 of 2018 Smt. Asha Verma W/o Vishram Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Nearby Shitla Mandir, Ward No. 10, Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Vishram Verma S/o Punaram Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Single Dipti, Bazar Chowk, Gandhi Gali, Nagpur, Maharashtra, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Bhaskar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge,, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.81/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts according to the applicant is that her marriage was solemnized with the non-applicant/husband in the year 2013, according to social rites and customs. After marriage, the non- applicant/husband took the applicant to Nagpur where he was working. After sometime non-applicant/husband tortured her for bringing less dowry. He used to consume liquor and beat her. Non-applicant/husband had illegal relation with another girl and pressurized the applicant to give him divorce. The applicant/wife came to Rajnandgaon, but non-applicant did not take step to bring her back. The applicant remains ill and not able to maintain herself. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the non-applicant/husband for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned, wherein he stated that the non-applicant/husband is working in an iron shop where from he earns Rs. 20000/- per month. The applicant prayed that she granted Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance. 3. The non-applicant/husband filed the reply and denied the allegation made by the applicant. According to non-applicant, applicant is living separately without any just cause, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. The applicant led evidence of herself and her witness Smt. Rekha Verma. The non-applicant examined himself and led the evidence of witness Santosh Sahu. 4. During the pendency of the case, the learned court below had granted Rs. 600/- per month interim maintenance in favour of applicant vide order dated 23.02.2017. After appreciating the 3 evidence and material available on record, hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant vide impugned order dated 23.03.2018. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned family Court is illegal and perverse. He further submits that the non-applicant has not made any attempt to take the applicant away. The applicant does not complain to the police station because she hopes that her husband will improve sooner or later and will take good care of the applicant. The non-applicant works in an iron shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. The applicant has no other source of income. The applicant is always ill and is not capable of doing labour work. The non-applicant, being the husband, is fully responsible for the maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed jurisdictional illegality in holding that the applicant is residing separately without any just cause on the ground that she did not get her father examined in her favour. The learned family Court has also committed jurisdictional illegality in holding that the non- applicant has not committee any cruelty towards applicant. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has recorded the finding that from the statements made by the applicant/wife, it is evident that she has been residing in Rajnandgaon for about one and a half years prior to presenting her affidavit evidence. However, during this period of one and a half years, the applicant has not filed any report in any police station. The applicant’s sister, Mrs. Rekha Verma, has also admitted that no report was filed regarding any incident of assault involving the applicant and the non-applicant. Similarly, the applicant’s statement shows that the non-applicant tried to bring her back to live with him, but the applicant refused to go with the non-applicant. Even after being counseled by the Court, the applicant refused to live with the non-applicant. The witness Rekha Verma has stated that the applicant has been living with him for the past two years. However, the non-applicant Vishram Verma has mentioned in his affidavit that Asha Verma is not the real sister of the applicant, but rather the sister-in-law (husband’s sister) of the applicant’s sister Aarti Verma and this statement has not been contradicted during cross-examination. In cross- examination, the applicant has admitted that her parents live in Joratari and that she has chosen to live in Rajnandgaon with her sister. Thus, the applicant is not residing with either her parents or her real sister, but is staying separately in Rajnandgaon. The applicant has not presented her parents as witnesses, which does not lend credibility to her statements. The fact that the applicant 5 did not file a First Information Report (FIR) against the non- applicant and did not present the testimony of her close relatives, indicates that she is living separately without any sufficient cause, and no act of cruelty has been committed against her by the non- applicant/husband. Since the applicant is living separately from the non-applicant without any sufficient cause, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the application submitted by the applicant before the trial Court was rejected. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal