1 2025:CGHC:34076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 563 of 2022 Smt. Pooja Sit W/o Akash Ghosh Aged About 20 Years R/o Deendayal Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Ward No. 06, Raigarh, Tahsil And Police Station Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Akash Ghosh S/o Rameshchand Ghosh Aged About 25 Years R/o Old College Road, Near High School, In Front of Uma Utsav Vatika, Champa, Post Champa, Via. Police Station Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.18 19:05:32 +0530 2 kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2022, passed by Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-12/2020 and award the maintenance amount as claimed before the learned trial Court to the revisioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After marriage, the applicant became pregnant; however, during the course of her pregnancy, the respondent and her in-laws did not take care of her, due to which two minor children died in the womb. The respondent and his family members have been treating the applicant with cruelty. The father of the applicant died around 15 years ago, and she has been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family. The respondent/husband is addicted to liquor and has assaulted her several times. Furthermore, the respondent has also cast doubts on the character of the applicant. No effort has been made by the respondent to bring the applicant back. On the contrary, the respondent/husband has submitted that he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 20.12.2019, and after receiving notice of the Section 9 application, the applicant/wife filed the present application for maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court recorded the statements of the applicant 3 as PW-1, the mother of the applicant, Smt. Ganga Sit, as PW-2, and witness Smt. Sumti Mahto as PW-3 in support of the application for maintenance. On the other hand, the respondent/husband adduced his statement as DW-1 and examined Ramanuj Yadav as DW-2 to refute the allegations and the maintenance claim of the applicant. 5. Learned Family Court, after recording the statements, came to the conclusion that the applicant was subjected to cruelty but did not file any complaint with the police, and no case is pending against the respondent/husband and his family. Further, the Court held that the applicant is living separately without any justifiable ground; hence, she is not entitled to maintenance, and her application was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order (Annexure R/1) dated 18.02.2022 is bad in law and perverse, and thus liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court relied upon a document that is unregistered and unauthorized, and the source of its origin has not been explained. Further, it is unclear who wrote the contents of the document, and neither the date nor the place is mentioned in it; hence, it is not reliable. He submits that there are categorical allegations against the respondent and his in-laws that they subjected the applicant/wife to cruelty, and due to such cruelty, two minor children died in the womb. The respondent used to consume liquor and beat the applicant. The applicant, in an attempt to save her family, did not initially make any police complaint. He further submits that although a subsequent complaint was made, 4 she does not have a copy of the receiving, and therefore, the trial Court did not accept the contention of the applicant/wife. He also submits that the husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 merely to shield himself from the consequences of the real allegations made by the applicant/wife. It is an undisputed fact that physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the applicant/wife by the respondent, which compelled her to live separately, and this aspect was completely overlooked by the trial Court. It is admitted in the counseling proceedings that the applicant refused to go back with the respondent due to the cruelty inflicted upon her by the respondent/husband. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material on record in the correct perspective and erroneously held that the wife deserted the husband without any just and sufficient reason, thereby rejecting her claim for maintenance, whereas the wife clearly made submissions and allegations regarding cruelty, which were completely overlooked by the learned trial Court. The respondent submitted that he wants to live with the wife, but the wife is unwilling to live with him for justified reasons, as she lost her minor children in the womb during pregnancy and was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home, which are just and sufficient reasons for her to live separately, therefore, the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance as claimed before the learned Family Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the 5 applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and observed that the applicant left her matrimonial house of her own free will, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek