1 2025:CGHC:38874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 780 of 2023 Smt. Mongara Devi Sahu W/o Vijay Kumar Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Near Krishna School, Bhanpuri, Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.), At Present R/o Village - Sonpuri (Guda), Police Chauki - Dashragpur, Up-Trahsil And Police Station - Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vijay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Sukhiram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Electrician And Property Dealer, R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Near Krishna School, Bhanpuri, Police Station - Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kamal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Distrtict - Kawardha (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.16/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:19 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.04.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant began residing with the respondent and they lived together as husband and wife. From the wedlock, two children were born — a daughter, Ku. Lilakshi, and a son, Guru. Initially, their marital life was peaceful. However, after a few years, the respondent and his family members began subjecting the applicant to cruelty for dowry. The respondent also started consuming alcohol and developed an illicit relationship with one Gauri Bai Chandrakar. The applicant was mentally harassed and even accused of being a "tonahi" (witch), further aggravating her suffering. A social meeting was convened on 01.07.2020 to resolve the disputes, but the respondent failed to comply with the decisions made during the gathering. He also forcefully retained the applicant’s gold and silver ornaments and denied her custody of the minor children. Subsequently, the applicant was forcefully driven out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the applicant returned to her parental home and started residing there. Despite several attempts to reconcile and live together with the children, the Respondent refused. In 2021, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.), seeking maintenance. 3. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and, while admitting the marital relationship, denied the other allegations and falsely accused the applicant of having an extramarital affair. After examining evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court dismissed the applicant’s application on the ground that although she is the respondent’s wife, she is living separately without sufficient reason and has allegedly developed a relationship with another man. Therefore, relying on Section 125(4) 3 Cr.P.C., the Court held that she is not entitled to maintenance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside, and the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the facts and circumstances of the case and rejected the applicant’s application without applying judicial mind. The order suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. C. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that after a few years of peaceful marital life, the respondent and his family members began subjecting the applicant to cruelty and dowry demands. The respondent started consuming alcohol and developed an illicit relationship with one Gauri Bai Chandrakar. The applicant was branded as a "Tonahi" (witch) and mentally harassed. A social meeting was convened on 01.07.2020, but the respondent failed to comply with the decisions taken therein. He also forcibly retained the applicant’s gold and silver ornaments and denied her custody of the minor children before ultimately evicting her from the matrimonial home. These acts gave the applicant sufficient and valid reasons to live separately. Hence, the order passed by the learned court is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the mobile chats submitted by the Respondent as evidence were not from the applicant’s personal number but from a mobile phone used collectively by the family. No allegation of adultery can be sustained on such vague and unverified evidence. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He neither submitted proof of ownership of the mobile number nor examined any person allegedly involved in the chats. In the absence of credible evidence, the allegation 4 of adultery stands unproven. Thus, the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the evidence presented by the respondent clearly indicates that the applicant had a relationship with a person other than her husband, which became the cause of dispute between the applicant and the respondent. Due to these disputes, the applicant is currently residing at her parental home. The applicant has alleged that the respondent harassed her for dowry and labeled her a "tonahi" (witch), but she has failed to substantiate these allegations with any supporting evidence. Therefore, it is evident that the applicant is living separately from the respondent without any just and sufficient cause, and that she had a relationship with someone other than her husband. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 10. 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