1 2025:CGHC:31287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 626 of 2021 Kaushilya Sahu W/o Shivshankar Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Talwapara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, Present Address Village Pampapur , Police Station Surajpur , Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus Shivshankar Sahu S/o Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Balgrih Ashram, Talwapara, Baikunthpur , District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. No.89/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 12:02:12 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent married around 10 years ago, following Hindu rites and rituals. However, about a year after their marriage, the respondent's behavior changed drastically, and he began physically abusing the applicant, demanding dowry without any reason. Despite hoping for improvement, the respondent continued his tormenting behavior, ultimately forcing the applicant out of her matrimonial home through physical abuse and dowry demands. The applicant attempted to reconcile through the Sakhi One Stop Centre (Women & Child Development Department) in Surajpur. Although the respondent has a good income and owns property, he refused to take care of the applicant and rejected her requests for reconciliation. Counseling efforts did not yield a positive outcome. In his written statement, the respondent claimed that the couple has two children and denied demanding dowry or abusing the applicant. Instead, he alleged that the applicant asked him to live with her parents as a "ghar-jamai," leading to her departure from the matrimonial home. The Family Court in Surajpur considered the pleadings and evidence but dismissed the applicant's case in a brief and superficial manner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the orders passed by the Learned Family Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside /quashed in accordance with the law of natural justice. The learned Family Court erred in appreciating the evidence available on record. Whereas, the applicant has categorically stated that she was regularly physically and mentally harassed by the respondent for the want of dowry. Moreover, she was even denied the suggestion made by the counsel of the respondent in her cross examination. The purpose of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is a social justice legislation. Moreover, the learned Family Court fall short to appreciate that the applicant had 3 approached the Sakhi Centre and as per the counseling statement recorded by the centre, it shows that the husband has refused to accept the applicant as his wife as well as he also denied to take her to his house. Therefore, on appreciating the applicant deposition as well as the Sakhi Centre statements, it is quite crystal clear that the respondent for the want of dowry kicked out the applicant from matrimonial house. The provision of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 is very clear in respect to the maintenance to the person who is not able to maintain themselves. Therefore, as per the evidence available on records the applicant is eligible for the maintenance from the respondent being the legal wife of the respondent. Hence, the present revision is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife has told that the respondent/husband is a lawyer and earns Rs. 60,000/- per month by renting out his house and also earns Rs. 5,00,000/- annually from his hardware shop and farming, but she has not presented any proof in this regard. But the respondent is a 33-year-old healthy person and it is presumed that he earns at least Rs. 10,000/- by working as a labourer. In that situation, despite the respondent being a person with sufficient means, the applicant who does not have sufficient and proper reason to 4 live separately from the respondent is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family 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