1 2025:CGHC:41312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 591 of 2024 Smt. Neelam Gupta W/o Nilesh Gupta Aged About 23 Years R/o Baniyapara Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Nilesh Gupta S/o Nandkishore Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o Pandriya Tehsil - Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, holding the brief of Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.28/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 solemnized on 30.06.2021. Thereafter, on 11.03.2022, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking monthly maintenance from her husband. She submitted therein that soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started misbehaving with her on the pretext of dowry. When she went to her parental home for the first time after marriage, the respondent ignored her calls and stated that since she had not brought a sofa set and a two- wheeler in dowry, he would only take her back if those articles were provided. She further submitted that her sister-in-law and father-in-law used to torture her for dowry, and they also used abusive language towards her mother and brother-in-law. The respondent allegedly refused to consummate the marriage, assaulted and harassed her, and, along with other in-laws, pressured her to demand Rs.3,00,000/- from her mother for purchasing a shop. The applicant has no source of income, her father is deceased, and she resides at her parental home with her widowed mother and unmarried younger sister, where they are barely able to sustain themselves. In contrast, the respondent comes from a sound financial background; he owns a grain shop earning around Rs.15,00,000/- per season, a pick-up vehicle given on rent, two houses, and approximately five acres of agricultural land in village Pandriya. On these grounds, she sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to harassment and assault by the respondent and his family members, the 3 applicant lodged a report at Police Station Dhamtari, on the basis of which Crime No. 286/2022 was registered under Section 498-A of the IPC, which is pending trial. Thereafter, in reply, the respondent denied all allegations and claimed that he never misbehaved with the applicant. He contended that his behaviour was never cruel, and that his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been allowed; however, despite being informed about the decree, the applicant refused to return to the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court, Dhamtari, vide order dated 09.05.2024, rejected the applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. A certified copy of the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A/1. Being aggrieved by the said order, present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, relied upon by the learned Family Court, was passed ex parte in favour of the respondent. The trial proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC against the respondent are still pending before the competent Court. The evidence adduced by the applicant was not considered at all, which the learned Family Court ought to have taken into account while deciding the matter. The statements of the witnesses produced by the respondent are not trustworthy, being those of interested witnesses, and suffer from severe 4 contradictions and omissions, which have remained unexplained. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 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 rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing fact that the the applicant wife failed to prove that she was living separately from her husband for any sufficient and reasonable cause, hence, under Section 125(4) CrPC, she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the 5 concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil