1 2025:CGHC:36863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 62 of 2020 1 - Smt. Sudha Ravi W/o Santosh Ravi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur P.S. Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Poonam Ravi D/o Santosh Ravi Aged About 13 Years Through Mother Applicant No. 1 , Smt. Sudha Ravi, R/o Village Kalyanpur P.S. Jainagar, Tehsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Santosh Ravi S/o Jagdhar Ravi Aged About 35 Years Caste - Chamar, R/o Village Sayar Rayi Tehsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.65/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the application states that the applicant's marriage to the respondent took place in 2005 according to customary rites. After the marriage, both parties started living together as husband and wife and had a child, applicant No. 2, who is 13 years old. The respondent is a habitual drunkard and used to physically assault and behave cruelly towards the applicant. Despite tolerating this for the sake of the child's future, there was no improvement in the respondent's behavior. On June 18, 2018, the respondent physically assaulted the applicant, threw her and their child out of the house, and the applicant filed a report with the police, which is still pending. A panchayat was also convened, but the respondent refused to take the applicant back and instead served her a divorce notice. The respondent is not providing maintenance to the applicants, who have no means of sustenance. On the other hand, the respondent earns Rs. 20,000/- per month by working as a mason and tailor, and also owns agricultural land. The applicant's evidence shows that she is unable to maintain herself, while the respondent earns Rs. 4,000/- per month from tailoring and masonry work. The applicants have prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 each, totaling Rs. 20,000 per month. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the 3 allegations alleged by the applicants. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court should have considered that the relationship between the applicants and the non-applicant is admitted and undisputed. Consequently, the non-applicant is liable to maintain his wife and children, who are unable to maintain themselves due to a lack of source of income. The learned Family Court should have considered that even if the wife/applicant No. 1 is living separately without sufficient reason, the minor child/applicant No. 2, who is attending primary school, has their own living expenses for food, clothing, medication, etc., and is entitled to be maintained by their father, the non-applicant. Therefore, the minor child ought to have been awarded maintenance as prayed for before the Learned Court below. He further submits that the applicants lack the means to earn their livelihood and are living separately for sufficient and reasonable cause. The evidence recorded before the learned Family Court reveals that the applicants are living separately due to the non-applicant's harassment, as he would assault them while intoxicated, and his alcoholism. This constitutes a sufficient reason for living separately, entitling the applicants to maintenance. He also submits that the applicant humbly submits that even if applicant No. 1 may not be entitled to 4 maintenance, applicant No. 2, being the minor child of the non- applicant and applicant No. 1, is undoubtedly entitled to maintenance until she attains the age of 18 years. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and the application filed by the applicants ought to have been allowed as prayed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that the applicant No.1 has stated the reason for living separately from the respondent is that when she sat on the respondent's motorcycle to go to work, he pushed her off and physically assaulted her. Her father, Gopal, did mention that the respondent used to physically assault his daughter, but he did not testify about the specific incident. Thus, the applicant and her father did not consistently state that the respondent always physically assaulted her. A single day's dispute between husband and wife cannot be categorized as harassment. The respondent's defense is that the applicant is living at her parental home of her own accord. The respondent's witness stated that he went several times to fetch the applicant, but she refused to return. This testimony remains unchallenged by the defense. The applicant's statement confirms that she is living separately from the respondent at her parental home, but she 5 lacks a valid and sufficient reason for doing so. As for applicant No. 2, it is acknowledged that she resides with her father. In this situation, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicants are not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil