1 2025:CGHC:37759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 815 of 2024 Smt. Yamini Singh @ Sapna Singh W/o Tapan Singh Banafar, Aged About 20 Years Caste Thakur, R/o Villge-Jagmahant, Police Station- Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o Village- Hathnewara, Police Station And Tehsil - Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Tapan Singh Banafar S/o Lalit Singh, Aged About 34 Years Caste- Thakur, R/o Village- Jagmahant, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Monika Dey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vishwanath Shriwas, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Monika Dey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision and Quash/Set- aside the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 216/2023 and an order may also be passed in favor of the applicant for appropriate maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, married him on 04.12.2021 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Korba, following a prior love relationship. After marriage, the applicant began residing at the respondent’s house, and later the couple shifted to a rented house at Champa where the respondent was employed. Initially, the marriage was peaceful for two months; however, thereafter, the applicant was allegedly subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the respondent and his family. It is alleged that the respondent, under the influence of liquor, assaulted the applicant, doubted her character, and caused her miscarriage. Subsequently, disputes arose, and the respondent shifted to Janjgir to reside with relatives, where further incidents of abuse occurred even towards the applicant’s parents when they attempted reconciliation. Thereafter, the applicant began living with her parents and, after failed attempts to resume cohabitation, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance. The respondent appeared, filed his reply 3 denying most allegations, and evidence was recorded from both parties. Upon hearing, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant’s application for maintenance, leading to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is bad in law, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of justice, and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, without due application of judicial mind, thereby erroneously rejecting the applicant’s claim for maintenance. It is an admitted fact that after a brief period of peaceful cohabitation, the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty and dowry- related harassment, and the applicant was even assaulted, leading to the miscarriage of her unborn child. The respondent also doubted the character of the applicant and repeatedly assaulted her, which provided sufficient reason for the applicant to reside separately at her parental home. Despite these facts and the respondent’s gainful employment as a Helper at P.I.L., Champa, earning substantial income, the learned Family Court failed to consider his financial capacity and the applicant’s lack of independent income. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a legally wedded wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband, and the respondent is legally bound to maintain the applicant in accordance with their social and 4 financial status. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the applicant is entitled to a just and reasonable amount of maintenance from the respondent. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a thorough consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, rightly dismissed the applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court correctly observed that the applicant failed to establish sufficient and credible evidence to prove the allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, and assault by the respondent or his family members. It was also found that the applicant had voluntarily chosen to reside separately without any justifiable cause, and there was no cogent proof of neglect or refusal by the respondent to maintain her. Furthermore, the Court rightly took into account the respondent’s financial circumstances and the inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony. Therefore, the impugned order is well- reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan