1 2025:CGHC:27411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 716 of 2018 Smt. Meena Bhagat W/o Bindeshwar Bhagat Aged About 21 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o- Village- Ghatmunda, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o- Kaliya, Post- Bachhraon, Police Station And Tahsil- Baghicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Bindeshwar Bhagat S/o Vishwanath Bhagat Aged About 27 Years R/o- Village- Ghatmunda, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Atul K. Gavel holding the brief of Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Atul K. Gavel holding the brief of Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.94/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent are husband & wife and their marriage was solemnized on 30.04.2015 according to social rituals. After marriage, the applicant went to her matrimonial house at Village Ghatmunda for performing matrimonial obligations, where the applicant was kept proper by respondent for two months and thereafter the respondent and other in-laws family members subjected her to cruelty and they also used to assault with her on account of demand of dowry and ultimately she ousted from the matrimonial house. It was further submitted by the applicant that she has no source of income, whereas the respondent is earning Rs. 15,000/-per month, despite this, he is not giving single penny to the applicant towards her maintenance. After serving notice, the respondent filed reply, whereby denied the allegation. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 27.04.2018, the learned Family Court has rejected the application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by holding that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Hence the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has filed to consider the fact that applicant is subjected to cruelty 3 by respondent and in-laws of the respondent, whereas the respondent has kept other lady as his wife, which itself appears that the applicant is living separately on account of reasonable cause, as such, applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent is she is entitled for grant of maintenance from the respondent. He further submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income, whereas respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month, therefore, she is entitled for grant of maintenance. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that there is no clear evidence that the applicant is unable to maintain herself; merely being a married wife does not automatically entitle her to maintenance. It is acknowledged that the applicant voluntarily left her matrimonial home to live with her parents for the purpose of studying. The respondent is currently willing to keep the applicant with him and 4 provide maintenance. The counseling conducted in court also revealed that the applicant deliberately chose not to live with the respondent. Considering all these circumstances, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that applicant is not entitled for grant of maintenance. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil