1 2025:CGHC:36116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 433 of 2021 Hemwanti Tamrakar W/o Shri Devanand Tamrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Mishra Basti Bhatthi Road Kedarpur Ambikapur , Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Devanand Tamrakar S/o Late R.G. Saw Aged About 59 Years R/o Behind New Veg Computer , Near Pratappur Naka Ambikapur , Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shashi Tamrakar S/o Devanand Tamrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Mishra Basti Bhatthi Road, Kedarpur Ambikapur , Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharda Prasad on behalf of Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 District- Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 128/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that marriage of applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar and respondent No.1 Devanand Tamrakar was solemnized on 08.05.1984 according to Hindu customs. After marriage, applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar started living with respondent No.1 Devanand Tamrakar's house and started leading her married life. From the marital relationship of applicant and respondent, three sons were born - Ravikant, Shashikant and Muktesh, all more than 20 years of age. Respondent Devanand Tamrakar's sister Lalita Devi and his son Santosh Tamrakar also live in his ancestral house. Lalita Devi has left her husband and is living at her parent's house. Lalita Devi and Santosh Tamrakar have no source of income, which is why respondent Devanand Tamrakar provides financial assistance to his sister Lalita Devi from time to time for Santosh Tamrakar's education. Due to this, there was discord in the marital life of respondent Devanand Tamrakar and applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar. The applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar and her children tried to make respondent Devanand Tamrakar aware of the evil intentions of his sister Lalita Devi and son Santosh Tamrakar, but respondent Devanand Tamrakar did not listen to them. For the last many months, respondent Devanand Tamrakar is turning away from all responsibilities towards his wife applicant Hemvanti 3 Tamrakar and children and is not supporting them physically and financially, therefore applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar is facing financial problems. Troubled by the behaviour of respondent Devanand Tamrakar, his elder son lives in a separate house after marriage. His elder son does not provide any financial support to applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar. Due to this reason, applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar is facing financial difficulties of many kinds and the respondent Devanand Tamrakar is not taking interest in the upbringing and responsibilities of his wife applicant Hemwanti Tamrakar and children. The respondent Devanand Tamrakar was deceived by his sister Lalita Devi and nephew Santosh Tamrakar, therefore the he left the house on 15.06.2019 and is living separately from applicant Hemvati Tamrakar and her children and is not maintaining and taking care of his wife applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar and children. Due to all these reasons, the applicant herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, but the learned Family Court after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, rejected her application. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, arbitrary and against the law, hence liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. The learned Family Court has erred in not properly utilizing his jurisdiction vested on him by not allowing the application for maintenance filed by the applicant. Further, the 4 learned Family Court has erred in holding that the respondent No.1 has neglected and tortured the applicant without any reason by ignoring that the respondent No.1 is residing separately in rental house without any sufficient cause. The learned Family Court has erred in not tacking into proper consideration the material and evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has committed gross irregularity by not properly assessing the income of the respondent No.1. Applicant is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 21000.00/half of the income of respondent No.1 which deem fit. 4. 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 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 respondent, Devanand Tamrakar, claims to live separately from his family in a rented house due to alleged physical abuse by his wife i.e. applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar, and their sons, which led to him being thrown out of the family home. Such a situation has arisen because of 5 applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar. Further, the learned Family Court held that the applicant Hemvanti Tamrakar had filed the application with malice. The learned Family Court further held that the wife not allowing the husband to meet other members of their joint family constitutes cruelty to the husband, therefore the Family Court concluded that the applicant, Hemvanti Tamrakar, to receive maintenance allowance from her husband, respondent No. 1, Devanand Tamrakar. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil