1 2025:CGHC:46889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 564 of 2021 1. Smt. Neha Mandhani W/o Sumit Thawani, Aged About 33 Years R/o Mata Dewalaya Ward, Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara City, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Ishani Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt Neha Mandhani, R/o Mata Dewalaya Ward, Bhatapara P.S. - Bhatapara Citys, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Sumit Thawani S/o Girish Thawani, Aged About 31 Years R/o 28/07, Kushabhau Thakre Premises, in Front of Block No. 02, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.409/2019, whereby the learned Family PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.15 18:25:39 +0530 2 Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the non-applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant (wife) married the non-applicant (husband) on 17.01.2016, in Bhatapara, and they have a 4-year-old daughter, Ishani, from the marriage. The applicant alleges that she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demands, physical harassment, and sexual abuse by her husband and in-laws, who demanded Rs. 20 lakhs and a car. She was thrown out of the matrimonial home while pregnant, and efforts for reconciliation were refused. The applicant lodged an FIR (Crime No. 313/2018) against the non-applicant and his family under Sections 498A, 34, and 377 IPC on 14.12.2018. She also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 each to the applicants, which was later increased to Rs. 6,000 for the applicant (wife) and maintained at Rs. 3,000 for the daughter by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara. Both parties have filed revisions before this Court. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the non-applicant stopped paying maintenance, leaving the applicant in a state of penury. The learned Family Court held that the applicant (wife) is not living separately for a valid reason, despite knowing that the police have found evidence of cruelty and filed a 3 charge-sheet against the non-applicant (husband) in Criminal Case No. 12368/19 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, on 23.11.2019. The learned Family Court also inferred that the applicant is working and earning money from her father's firm, which is a finding that is perverse and contrary to the record. Thus, it is clear that the learned Family Court passed order contrary to law and has given finding not relevant to the issue but detrimental to the applicants. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that the order is based on findings that are perverse and contrary to the record. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the applicant disclosed criminal offenses committed by the non-applicant, which constitutes a valid reason for living separately. The applicants have suffered a miscarriage of justice due to the impugned order. There are patent illegality and jurisdictional errors in the proceedings, warranting quashing of the entire proceedings and the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. It transpires from the record that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 07.07.2025, the matter was referred before the Mediation Centre, but the mediation also failed between the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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, and further the fact that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 07.07.2025, the matter was referred before the Mediation Centre, but the mediation also failed between the parties and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti