1 2025:CGHC:6172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 795 of 2012 • Smt. Sunita Dubey W/o Amarnath Dubey @ Sonu Dubey, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C/o Dhanush Prasad Dubey Near Amar Gas Godowan Road, Samta Colony, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • Amarnath Dubey @ Sonu Dubey, S/o Hari Prasad Dubey, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Navagarh , P.S. Navagarh, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 03/02/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicant/wife under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1955 against the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.201/2011, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case are that marriage of applicant – Smt. Sunita Dubey was solemnized with non-applicant – Amarnath Dubey on 08.07.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that after the marriage, the non-applicant/husband and other family members used to ill-treat and torture her for demand of one motorcycle as dowry. When the said PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.05 11:38:17 +0530 2 fact came to the knowledge of the brother and other family members of the applicant, they visited her matrimonial house and after taking permission, they took the applicant with them to parental house. Thereafter, on 27.10.2010, the applicant has lodged a report before Civil Lines Police Station. Subsequently, on 11.11.2010, the applicant filed a report and a case under Section 498A of the IPC was registered against non-applicant/husband. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the Non-applicant as she is unable to maintain herself. After considering the evidence and perusal of material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 20.04.2012, rejected the application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed grave error of law in dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., despite holding that the applicant is the wife of non-applicant, and she has been tortured and ill-treated by her husband and in-laws for demand of one motorcycle as dowry. He further submits that there is sufficient reason available to the applicant to reside separately from non-applicant. He further submits that the Non-applicant is having sufficient means of income as he runs a business earning Rs.25,000/- per month and he is also having agricultural land from which he earns Rs.2,00,000/- annually. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant is entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the non-applicant and the impugned award passed by the learned Family Court may be set-aside. 3 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife and perused the material available on record. 5. The learned Family Court in paragraph 13 of its impugned order has observed that on 20.06.2011 both the applicant/wife and non- applicant/husband were present before Counseling wherein she would be ready to live with him subject to condition that the applicant would leave his family and would reside in Ratanpur on rent whereupon the non-applicant agreed and was ready to live with applicant even in Ratanpur, however, in spite of that the applicant did not go to the non- applicant. 6. It has further been observed in paragraph 14 that as is evident from Ex.D-1 and D-2, the non-applicant filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, which has been decreed in favour of the non- applicant/husband while holding that the applicant/wife is living separately with the applicant without any reasonable cause. Despite passing of the said order, the applicant did not join the company of the non-applicant. 7. The applicant (AW-01) in her statement has stated that immediately after 2nd day of her marriage, the non-applicant/husband used to commit marpit with her for demand of motorcycle as dowry and on 21.09.2010, with the help of her brother Narayan Sharma (AW-03), she went to her parental house. But in the application filed by her under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she has not pleaded anywhere that the non- applicant used to commit marpit with her. She further stated that on 25.10.2010, the non-applicant had come to her parental house to take her but her family members did not send her with non-applicant. Moreover, Smt. Sushila Dubey (AW-02) who is the sister of the 4 applicant, in her cross-examination has admitted that at the time of marriage, the non-applicant has not demanded motorcycle as dowry. Narayan Sharma (AW-03) who is the brother of the applicant has stated that after the marriage of her sister (applicant), the non-applicant has demanded motorcycle as dowry. Thus, there are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the statements of the above witnesses with regard to demand of motorcycle as dowry. 8. Further, the learned Family Court in paragraph 18 of its impugned judgment has concluded that there is a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of the non-applicant/husband and the said decree has not been complied with by the applicant/wife. Further, the applicant is residing separately from non-applicant without sufficient and proper reason. 9. Thus, considering the above evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order prima facie, holding that the applicant/wife does not have sufficient reason to live separately from non-applicant/husband. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash