1 2025:CGHC:35560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 607 of 2025 Smt. Bhagwati Sonkar W/o Bhupendra @ Raja Sonkar Aged About 25 Years At Present R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward Nayapara Dhamatari District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Bhupendra @ Raja Sonkar S/o Dukalaha Sonkar Aged About 29 Years R/o Sheetlapara Rajim Tahsil Rajim District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 08.11.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 74/2024 by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.), and further allow the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant married the non-applicant on 09.05.2022 at Dhamtari and thereafter started residing at her matrimonial home in Rajim. She alleges that soon after marriage, the non-applicant neglected her, used filthy language, and failed to provide medical care when she suffered from a skin ailment, compelling her to seek treatment at her parental house. She further contends that the non-applicant would return home late at night, frequently quarrel, and that her mother-in-law harassed her for dowry, while on 18.06.2022, her father-in-law allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty. The applicant claims she informed her parents during the Teeja festival, after which a social meeting was convened, but despite directions from the community to return her Stridhan and grant divorce, no action was taken by the non- applicant. Consequently, she approached the Women Cell and later filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The non-applicant denied the allegations, alleging that the applicant had a love affair and was unwilling to marry him, that she left the matrimonial home with her Stridhan without sufficient cause, and that he was willing to keep her. The Family Court, upon appreciation of evidence, held that the applicant was living separately without sufficient reason and dismissed her application under Section 125 3 Cr.P.C., Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in dismissing the applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance by relying solely on the oral testimony of the non-applicant, without properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence adduced by the applicant to establish the circumstances under which she was compelled to live separately. The Family Court further failed to consider that the non-applicant did not produce any documentary evidence, such as mobile receipts or medical records, to substantiate his claims. It also ignored material admissions made by the non-applicant during cross-examination, wherein he acknowledged the social meetings held at Dhamtari and Rajim in respect of the disputes and the application submitted by the applicant’s father before the Sonkar Samaj, as well as his admission that no application was ever filed by him before the Court to bring the applicant back, contrary to the Court’s observation in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the Court failed to properly appreciate documentary evidence, including Article A/1, Exhibit P/2, and the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, and dismissed the application in disregard of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg & Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022 SCC Online SC 1314), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof. Hence, the impugned order is unjust, perverse, and liable to be set aside. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a thorough appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly held that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient cause. The Court took into account the non-applicant’s consistent stand that he was willing to maintain and reside with the applicant, and that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with her Stridhan. It was further noted that the applicant’s allegations, including those of neglect, dowry harassment, and alleged misconduct by the in-laws, were not supported by cogent evidence or corroborative documents. The Family Court also considered the contradictions emerging from the applicant’s testimony and her failure to establish justifiable reasons for living separately. In these circumstances, the Court correctly concluded that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and lawfully dismissed her application. 8. 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan