1 2025:CGHC:34655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 796 of 2022 Jyoti Vaishnav W/o Abhishek Vaishnav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kurra, Tahsil - Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Abhishek Vaishnav S/o Prabhakant Vaishnav Aged About 32 Years R/o In Front Of Govt. Primary School, Durga Mandi Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in MJC No. 89/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhamtari and submitted that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 23.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals and after sometime of marriage, she went to the house of non-applicant for performing RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 matrimonial obligations, but right from beginning of marriage, she was. subjected to cruelty by her in-law family members including respondent for demand of dowry. After marriage in two-three times, the father of applicant given cash to the in-law family member of the applicant, but the cruelty of the non-applicant was extending day-to-day and on 25.12.2020 the respondent has left the applicant in her parental house and since then she is living in her parental house. The non-applicant has never made any efforts to take back the applicant in spite of several requests made by the applicant. The respondent is running cloth shop at Tatibandh Raipur and getting monthly income of Rs. 70,000/-, whereas the applicant has no source of income, in spite of that the respondent is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the applicant, therefore, the applicant filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was subjected to cruelty by her in-law family members including the respondent while she was living in her matrimonial house, and ultimately she was ousted from the matrimonial house. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 3 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in MJC No. 89/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar