1 2025:CGHC:34644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 697 of 2023 Smt. Ganga Sahu W/o Shri Jagjit Sahu Aged About 28 Years D/o Shiv Sahu, R/o Village Chaurenga Tahsil And P.S. Simga District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.), At Present R/o Singdehi Tah. And P.S. Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Jagjit Sahu S/o Shri Bauwa Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chaurenga Tahsil And P.S. Simga Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned cousnel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision petition and further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court Bilaspur ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:45 +0530 2 (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 82/2023, parties between “Smt. Ganga Sahu Vs. Jagjit Sahu” and directed to the respondent/non-applicant to pay the 8,000/- Rs. Per month maintenance amount to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance, requesting that the respondent, having ignored her maintenance, be directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. Upon receiving the applicant’s application, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent, and after service of the notice, the respondent filed a reply, as well as a reply to the interim maintenance application, before the Family Court. 5. Despite the existence of the above facts, the learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2023, whereby it rejected the applicant’s maintenance application on the ground that the applicant could not prove that she was living separately for a sufficient reason. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and is thus liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court ignored the provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner/applicant is living separately with sufficient reason. He submits that learned Family Court ignored the fact that the respondent has not filed any application under Section 9 of 3 the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, which shows that the respondent is not interested in enjoying a happy married life. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have seen that it was duly proved that the applicant has no source of income and that the respondent has not provided any maintenance to the her. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court itself mentioned in Para No. 6 of the impugned judgment that the applicant, i.e., the applicant, is unable to maintain herself; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court also mentioned in Para No. 7 of the impugned judgment that the respondent is a well-educated person holding a diploma in engineering and that he is a young person aged about 24 years, who is educated and has the ability to earn an income. Consequently, it is proved that the respondent is a person of sufficient means. Despite this, the learned Family Court wrongly rejected the applicant’s application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the applicant, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant had failed to prove her 4 case and that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek