1 2025:CGHC:11144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 605 of 2024 Smt. Priyanka Jangde W/o Vinod Kumar Jangde Aged About 25 Years R/o Murtipara Tendua, Post Office- Matasgara, Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.). At Present Resident Of Village- Domanpur,post Office Dashrangpur Police Station- Jarhagaon, Tahsil- Mungeli, District- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Applicant versus Vinod Kumar Jangde S/o Dhansingh Jangde Aged About 27 Years R/o Murtipara Tendua, Post Office- Matasgara, Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur ( C.G.). --- Respondents For Applicant/wife : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/husband : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. The applicant has filed this instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli (CG) in Misc. Criminal Case No.6/2023. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the applicant-wife has filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, stating therein that she is legally married wife of non-applicant/respondent (herein) and their marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2021. After 2 marriage, she went to the house of non-applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Ultimately, she was ousted from in-laws house on 11.05.2022 and left her in her parental house, thereafter, the applicant is living in her parental house, but she is facing difficulty in livelihood as she has no source of income, whereas the non-applicant is having sufficient source of income and also holding agricultural land, thereby earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to the applicant-wife, hence, applicant filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, to which, after serving notice, non-applicant filed the reply and denied the allegations stating that the applicant-wife is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024, has rejected the application of the applicant-wife filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C holding that the applicant is living separately without there being any reasonable cause. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order is perverse and bad in law, therefore, liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that due to assault and cruelty by the respondent-husband, the applicant-wife has made a complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bilaspur and, based upon which, crime No.33/2022 for offence u/s 498-A, 34 of IPC was registered against the applicant and his family members and they are facing trial for the said offence/crime. Learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the applicant is living separately from respondent -husband with reasonable cause, hence, finding of the family Court that she is not entitled to get any maintenance 3 from respondent is not sustainable. As the applicant-wife has no source of income and being a lady, she is not able to survive herself in present scenario of society. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned order be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of counsel for the applicant and would submit that learned Family Court on appreciation of material/evidence available and after hearing both the parties, has rightly rejected the application of the applicant-wife filed u/s 125 of Cr.P.C holding that the applicant is living separately without there being any reasonable cause. Hence, present petition deserves to be rejected/dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/evidence including the impugned order. 6. Perusal of records would show that respondent-husband made allegation against the applicant-wife that she has love affair with some other person, but failed to proved the said allegation. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that applicant-wife has lodged report against the respondent-husband for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, in which, charge-sheet has been filed and case is still pending before the concerned Court. 8. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the parties, finding recorded by the family Court while passing the impugned order, further considering the fact that applicant-wife has sufficient ground/reason to reside separately from the respondent-husband, I find it appropriate to remand back the matter to the learned Family Court concerned for deciding the application/case of the applicant afresh. 4 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned order dated 08.05.2024 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the concerned Family Court for deciding the case/application of the applicant with regard to the maintenance amount afresh in accordance with law on its own merits, within a period of ‘06 months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-