1 2025:CGHC:34604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 635 of 2023 Smt. Vidisha Sahu W/o Shailendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bamhnibhata, Post Aasra, Tehsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Shri Shailendra Kumar Sahu S/o Harish Kumar Sahu, Aged About 32 Years Occupation-Constable-C.A.F., R/o Village Bhendara (Korra), Post Korra, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:46 +0530 2 No. 142/2020, may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance. It was submitted that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 01.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village Bamhnibhata, Post Aasra, Tehsil Dongargaon. The applicant used to reside along with her brother-in-law as well as her mother-in-law and father-in-law. That, at the time of marriage, the respondent was posted as a constable at Faraspal (Dantewada), and the applicant started residing at her matrimonial house and was fulfilling her matrimonial obligations. Soon after the marriage, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the applicant started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Thereafter, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial house by the family members of the respondent and was forced to reside with her parents. The respondent husband is posted as a constable and draws a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month and is also the owner of 6 acres of agricultural land, whereas the applicant lives with her aged parents and is therefore unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The respondent filed his reply to the application and contended that the applicant only stayed for a period of about 15-20 days in her matrimonial home and thereafter went back to her parental home at Village Bamhnibhata. It was further submitted that both the husband and wife went to Faraspal (Dantewada), where the applicant started harassing the husband and did not fulfill her duties as a wife. The respondent submitted 3 that he does not own any agricultural land in his name and does not earn a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of maintenance. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicant, holding that the applicant had failed to prove her case and that she was living separately without sufficient cause. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record, as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the grounds raised by the applicant regarding the cruelty and harassment she faced at the hands of the family members of the respondent. He also submits that the learned Family Court committed a gross error by disbelieving the cogent evidence of Shivnarayan (A.W. 2), who had clearly stated about the cruel behavior of the father-in-law and mother-in-law, which forced the applicant to leave her matrimonial house. Learned Family Court, by giving vague findings, also disbelieved the evidence of applicant witness No. 2, who had clearly stated about the objectionable behavior of the applicant’s grandfather-in-law (Dada Sasur). The applicant wants to reside with her husband and is unable to maintain herself. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced 4 by the applicant, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant had failed to prove her case and that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek