1 2025:CGHC:36506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 815 of 2023 Khileshwari @ Khushabu Sharma W/o Surjeet Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Nargouda, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Behind The Kapil Nagar Chouk, Sarkanda Gas Goudam, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin- 495001 ... Applicant(s) versus Surjeet Singh Jayasi Constable S/o Raghuvar Jayasi Aged About 26 Years Posted Constable, Residing In Cg Police Station Sipat Colony Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Nargouda, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.737/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after the marriage, the applicant and the respondent began living together as husband and wife in a police quarter at Sipat. However, a few days later, the respondent and his family members started harassing the applicant for dowry and money, threatening to throw her out of the house. The applicant claims to have given Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent's family to avoid further harassment. The respondent allegedly married the applicant by deceiving her, taking advantage of her being from a well-to-do family and educated. He also received Rs. 2,50,000 as a reward for the inter-caste marriage, which he used for himself, and threatened to throw the applicant out of the house if she didn't give him more money. The applicant worked as a journalist for Basant News. One night, at 10 PM, the respondent's family members came to the police quarter and started abusing and physically assaulting the applicant. After this incident, the applicant started living with her sister in a rented house in Sarkanda, where she pursued her law studies. The respondent, who is a constable, would threaten her, and despite her complaints to the police authorities, no action was taken. The respondent allegedly demanded Rs. 45,000/- for his brother's treatment and Rs. 3,00,000/- for registering a plot, which was purchased in his mother's name instead of the applicant's. The respondent is employed as a constable in the police department, earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month, and also has 3 acres of irrigated agricultural land, generating an income of around Rs. 60,000/- per month from all sources. The applicant has no source of income and is not 3 receiving any financial support from her parents or society. Therefore, she has requested maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is living separately due to sufficient reasons, as evidenced by her testimony as PW/1, PW/2, and the documents exhibited as P/1 to P/35, which establish her case. He further submits that the applicant wife is unemployed and a law student preparing for competitive examinations. Furthermore, the respondent husband has sufficient sources of income, as per the record, and receives a monthly payment of more than Rs 35,000/-. He also submits that the respondent has no liability except towards the present applicant wife. The trial Court's order is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant does not have sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent. As per the 4 provisions of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the applicant does not have sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the wife / applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil