1 2025:CGHC:37424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 523 of 2021 Smt. Mantora Bai W/o Rajkumar @ Balla Ram Verma, Aged About 40 Years R/o Shri Somnath Verma, Village Kodwa, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Balouda Bazar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Rajkumar @ Balla Ram Verma, S/o Late Itwari Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tendulotha Post Office, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gajendra Chelak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.411/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent were peacefully residing together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, one son Om Prasad Verma was born and he is a married person now and has left his mother i.e. applicant for livelihood and he is living with his family members at Raipur separately from his mother. The respondent was residing at village Kodapar, P.S. Palari, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) and after lapse of 27 years of the marriage, the respondent harassed and tortured the applicant by physical and mental cruelty without any reason and he has solemnized marriage with another woman without giving divorce to his legally wedded wife i.e. applicant and is residing with another wife at village Tendulotha, P.S. and Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh at present. The respondent and his son have left the applicant and the applicant has no source of income for livelihood and respondent is working in the Rice Mill and obtained Rs. 300/- per day and he is having agricultural land area 1.436 hectare which is situated at village Tendulotha, P. H. No. 22, Revenue Circle Khallari, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, from which, he also obtains Rs. 2,00,000/- annually income and like this, the respondent earns total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and hence the applicant filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the respondent. The learned Family Court after 3 hearing both the parties, rejected the application preferred by the applicant. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the Applicant. The respondent has left his legally wedded wife applicant without any reason and without giving divorce, the respondent has solemnized marriage with another woman and he is residing with second wife at village Tendulotha, P.S. and Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. The learned family Court has failed to consider that respondent is working in the Rice Mill and obtained Rs. 300/- per day and he is having agricultural land area 1.436 hectare which is situated at village Tendulotha, P.H. No. 22, Revenue Circle Khallari, Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, from which, he obtains Rs. 2,00,000/- annual income and like this, the respondent has earned total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The respondent has dropped his legally wedded wife applicant and son of applicant has also dropped his mother applicant, due to this, the applicant has be stranded and she has no any source of income to survive for her livelihood and hence the maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- is liable to be granted for livelihood. The applicant is aged about 40 years and uneducated old lady and she has no means and has no any source of income to survive. 4 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 dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant after living 3-4 years together with the respondent after the marriage, voluntarily refused to live with the non-applicant and instead chose to live with her father, resulting in a prolonged separation of nearly 28-29 years and further, according to Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife isn't entitled to maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. 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. 5 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil