1 2025:CGHC:41289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 893 of 2024 Smt. Gayatri Thakur, W/o. Poshan Lal Thakur, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Tata Line, Ward No. 08, Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Poshan Lal Thakur, S/o. Late Santuram Thakur, Aged About 41 Years R/o. Tata Line, Ward No. 08, Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgoan) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 29.06.2024, (Annexure P/1) passed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:48:47 +0530 2 the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1079/2019, and further be pleased to allow the maintenance application filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ” 3. Facts of the case are that The applicant instituted an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the respondent, on the ground that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife, having solemnized their marriage according to Hindu law and rituals. After some time of marriage, the respondent allegedly began harassing her and subjecting her to cruel treatment, due to which she left his house and started residing with her parents. It is further submitted that she has no source of income to maintain herself, whereas the respondent has sufficient means to maintain both himself and the applicant. Hence, she sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 4. The respondent filed his reply, denying the contents of the application except for the fact of marriage. 5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 29.06.2024, dismissed the applicant’s application for maintenance on the ground that she had failed to specifically prove her case regarding the alleged harassment by the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and 3 evidence available on record. Learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant left the respondent’s house due to harassment and cruelty meted out by him. Learned Family Court, while refusing to award maintenance to the applicant, has acted contrary to law, particularly considering the financial and social condition of the applicant. He also submits that applicant, through cogent and reliable evidence, has clearly proved the cruelty inflicted by the respondent, which compelled her to leave his house. Therefore, there existed sufficient cause for her to live separately, and as per the provisions of law, she is entitled to claim maintenance. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, observing that she had failed to specifically prove her case regarding the alleged harassment by the respondent. 10. 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 learned Family 4 Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek