1 2025:CGHC:41300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 701 of 2024 Smt. Sunita Baghel D/o Ganpat Kurre, Aged About 38 Years Caste - Satnami, W/o Dharmesh Baghel, R/o Village - Jotpur, Police Station - Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Ward No. 4, Gokulnagar Ward, Ameri, Police Station - Sakri, Post Mangla, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dharmesh Baghel S/o Late Tirithram Baghel, Aged About 40 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Police Colony, Tifra, Police Station - Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Criminal Misc. Criminal Case No.1155/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.18 15:08:30 +0530 2 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. She stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, and their marriage was solemnized in 1999. From the marriage, four children were born: Vidya Baghel, Ku. Versha Baghel, Ku. Ragini Baghel, and Prateet Baghel. The applicant alleged that the non-applicant developed a relationship with a woman named Rajni and, as a result, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. He ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home, forcing her to reside at her parental house. It was further submitted that the non-applicant has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce, while the applicant has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Both cases are pending before the Family Court. The non-applicant is employed as a Head Constable in the Police Department, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/-, and also owns 6 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 3,00,000/- annually. The applicant, being a homemaker, has no independent source of income. Despite this, the non-applicant has failed to provide any financial support, compelling her to file the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 3. Upon notice, the non-applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and contending that the applicant is living separately without any 3 justifiable reason, and therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. He prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 24.05.2024, rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the applicant is living separately without sufficient cause. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is living separately due to the physical assault and cruelty inflicted by the non-applicant. The Court overlooked the fact that the applicant has no independent source of income and, being a woman, is unable to sustain herself in the current socio-economic environment. It erred in concluding that she is living separately without reasonable cause, thereby denying her rightful claim to maintenance. The learned Court also failed to consider that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and, due to lack of income, is entitled to maintenance for her survival. Furthermore, the non-applicant himself filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce, while the applicant has filed a petition under Section 9 of the same Act for restitution of conjugal rights. This clearly indicates that the non-applicant is unwilling to cohabit with the applicant. Additionally, the non-applicant subjected the applicant to cruelty and harassment and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home, forcing her to live separately. Despite 4 being employed as a Constable in the Police Department and earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month, along with an annual income of Rs. 3,00,000/- from 6 acres of agricultural land, he has failed to provide any financial support to the applicant, who is a homemaker with no source of income. The Family Court also failed to recognize that as the legally wedded wife, the applicant is entitled to maintain a standard of living comparable to that of the non- applicant. Hence, this impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Criminal Misc. Criminal Case No.1155/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, 5 and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti