1 2025:CGHC:36121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 561 of 2023 Smt. Jyoti Rajwade W/o Rupendra Rajwade Aged About 30 Years Caste - Rajwar, Resident Of Village - Basdei, Chowki - Basdei, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. Rupendra Rajwade S/o Vijay Rajwade Aged About 30 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation - Mason, Cultivator And Kirana Shop, Resident Of Village - Baijnathpur, Parasiya, Police Station - Odgi, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Ku. Pushpa D/o Rupendra Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Father Rupendra Rajwade And Presently Resident At Village - Baijnathpur, Parasiya, Police Station - Odgi, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Ankit Kumar S/o Rupendra Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Father Rupendra Rajwade And Presently Resident At Village - Baijnathpur, Parasiya, Police Station - Odgi, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents : None. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:32:45 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized approximately 11 years prior to the filing of the maintenance application. Out of their wedlock, non-applicants No. 2 and 3 were born and are currently residing with non-applicant No. 1. After marriage, the applicant went to her matrimonial home and fulfilled her marital obligations. However, shortly thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws, including non-applicant No. 1, due to dowry demands. Ultimately, she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 23.06.2006. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home along with her children. Later, after the maintenance case was filed, non-applicant No. 1 allegedly took away the children without her permission or knowledge. The applicant, being a woman with no source of income and having lost both her father and brother, claims financial hardship. In contrast, non-applicant No. 1 owns agricultural land and works as a mason, earning sufficient income but allegedly refuses to provide any financial support. 3. Upon service of notice, non-applicant No. 1 filed a reply denying the allegations and asserted that the applicant had voluntarily left the 3 matrimonial home without any just cause. He further alleged that the applicant was caught in an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, Santosh, in a compromising situation, and therefore, being a woman living in adultery, she is not entitled to maintenance. By interim order dated 09.02.2018, the learned Family Court granted the applicant maintenance of ₹2,000 per month. However, after hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 27.03.2023, rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the applicant was living in adultery and had sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income and she is facing great problems to run livelihood. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 is holding agricultural land, running Kirana shop and he is also doing mason work, despite this he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the applicant. He further submits that without any reliable material, the learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant was living in adultery and she has source of income to maintain herself, therefore she is not entitled to get maintenance from the non-applicant No. 1. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that in the present scenario of society, the applicant is not able to survive herself. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant was 4 the wife of non-applicant No. 1, but she voluntarily left her husband and started living in a state of adultery. She has sufficient means of income of her own. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant No.1/husband. Hence, the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti