1 2025:CGHC:27694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 885 of 2019 Smt. Shyama Bai Jade @ Sagabati, W/o Bisen Jade Aged About 40 Years Caste Gond, Permanent R/o Village Bheemadih, Post Saranwadi, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, At Present R/o Aghannagar, Kanker, Post And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Bisen Ram Jade S/o Bahadur Ram Jade Aged About 35 Years Permanent R/o Latmarka ( Bade Jhadkatta ) Police Station Badgaon, At Present Assistant Costable No. 261, D R G 02, Police C/o Police Line Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sukhdev Prasad Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sukhdev Prasad Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 44/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker, rejected the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant seeking maintenance form the respondent/husband. The applicant was married with respondent/husband on 25.04.2014 in accordance with the Vedik Manner at Arya Mandir, Bhilai and on the basis of the application filed before the Family Court for grant of maintenance, the same was dismissed by the concerned Court on 05.12.2014 and thereafter she filed an application against the respondent/husband against the domestic violence Act, which on account of absence of applicant was dismissed by the learned CJM Kanker on 05.07.2017. The respondent is Police constable posted at Police Line Kanker and permanent resident of Village Latmarka and on account of an order passed on 05.12.2014 in Misc. Criminal Case No.18/2014 on account of the compromise between the husband and wife, both had started to lived conjugal life at Aaghan Nagar Kanker but after few days, the respondent/husband had started to beat and assault and left her and on being made enquiry, it came to be known to the applicant that the respondent/husband lives along with one girl at Singharbhat Kanker and the applicant herself gone there and she found the respondent/husband along with that girl and there they had started to beat and assault the applicant and had also started to abuse but the respondent/husband had started to spotlight her and since the applicant has no other means of substance and the non-applicant/husband belongs to respectable family and constable and getting Rs.14,653/- per month therefore made a prayer for grant of Rs.8000/- per month. On the basis of reply filed by the respondent/husband, where he made allegation that she left him and therefore she was not entitled to get maintenance and since the 3 respondent/husband wanted to keep the applicant at his permanent village at Latmarka but in accordance to the reply of respondent/husband, the applicant is not interested to live along with the matrimonial home and since the respondent/husband had left her and since the respondent/husband has kept a lady and living at Singarbhat Kanker along with him and since in the presence of that girl, the respondent/husband had assaulted and turned her out and therefore on the basis of reply filed by the respondent, the points for determination was made but despite the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of her case and also the witnesses examined by her, the learned Family Court did not take into consideration the evidence adduced and the application by her and therefore dismissed the application filed by the applicant by passing the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of applicant, which was supported by the witnesses of another witness Laxmi Sahare, in which both the persons have categorically stated that the respondent was exploiting and left the applicant and since it was proved that the applicant had no other means to maintain herself and since the respondent is constable getting Rs.14653/- per month and posted at Kanker and despite the fact that the respondent had kept another lady and therefore there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of applicant and other witness, in support of his case and therefore the Court may consider to allow the revision and be pleased to make an order to set-aside the order of the Family Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned 4 Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 44/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, 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 there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar