1 2025:CGHC:10251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 770 of 2023 1 - Sapna W/o Neelkamal Kurre Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sambalpur, Police Station Nandgaht, District Bemetara (C.G.), Present Address - R/o Village Kachharipara, Behind Anganbadi Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Neelkamal S/o Hari Kishan Kurre Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sambalpur, Police Station Nandghat, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03/03/2025 1. The present application is filed by the present applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) passed in Cr. M.J.C. No. 38/2023, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant has filed an application 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month from the non-applicant. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the applicant and the non-applicant solemnized on 25.08.2021. The applicant has stated in her application that prior the marriage the applicant was studying and wanted to study after marriage also but the non-applciant used to oppose her study. The applicant said that she does not want to work. She wants to study even now, but the non-applicant started to harass her after consuming liquor. He also tortured and assaulted her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order dated 25.04.2023 is perverse and has been passed without application of judicial mind and thus deserves to be quashed. The applicant was forced to live separately from the non-applicant because the non-applicant is a drug addict and he used to assault the applicant in the state of intoxication. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of record would show that the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason and she refuses to live with her husband. 7. During the course of argument learned counsel for the applicant contended that respondent had filed a suit under Section 9 of the 3 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that is Civil Suit No. 106 A/2022 which has been decided on 06.03.2025. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, I have found that learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara held that there is sufficient cause for the wife of the respondent to live separately from her husband. 8. Therefore, the decree of Civil Court has binding effect on application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the concerned Court to decide the case a fresh on its own merits. 9. The concerned Family Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously as soon as possible within 3 months from the date of first hearing of the case, if there is no legal impediment. 10. The present applicant and the present non-applicant is directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Bemetara on 11.03.2025. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima