1 2025:CGHC:28609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 726 of 2019 Smt. Neha Dewangan W/o Madhuraj Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Gaytri Kunj B.T.I. Road Mahasamund, Present Address Jaypur Road Orana Camp Adawal Tahsil Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Madhuraj Dewangan S/o Prakatram Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Gaytri Kunj B.T.I. Road Mahasamund Police Station And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in MJC No. 32/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had filed an application RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned trial Court against the respondent for grant of maintenance on the allegations that applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the respondent herein deserted the applicant, and not taking care of her and raising cruelty. On account of which the applicant filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. the learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned Family Court has ignored that the applicant has proved her contention before the Court and established that the respondent does not want to live with applicant and this fact is also proved by that the respondent has moved a civil suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce from the applicant, the learned Family Court has hold that the respondent never left the applicant in her parental house, ignoring that it it is such then why the respondent does not file application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act instead of Section 13. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in MJC No. 32/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar