1 2025:CGHC:29589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 88 of 2016 Salma Khatoon W/o Mohammad Ramjan Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Ramchandra Hotel, Mosque Road, Zone 3, Khursipar, Sector 11, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Mohammad Ramjan S/o Nasir Ahmad Aged About 25 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Beside Dashahra Ground, Ward No. 19, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. V.B. Soni holding the brief of Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Kaushley holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. V.B. Soni, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Mr. Aman Kaushley, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court - Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.228/2014, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC against her husband, seeking Rs.10,000 per month, alleging dowry demands, harassment, and cruelty after their 2013 marriage, which led to her being ousted from the matrimonial home. The Family Court rejected the application, finding she lacked sufficient cause to live separately, prompting this revision petition. The applicant married the respondent on January 10, 2013, according to Muslim law. After the marriage, she faced harassment and cruelty from her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands. Despite tolerating the abuse, the situation worsened, and her husband even attempted to strangle her. In June 2013, she was beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home and has since been living with her parents. The applicant claims she is poorly educated, has no income, and her husband, who earns Rs.25,000 per month, refuses to provide maintenance, prompting her to file for maintenance. After serving notice, the 3 respondent filed his reply, whereby denied the averments made by the applicant except admitted fact and contended that the applicant is living separately without any sufficient cause. On the basis of pleadings of respective parties, the learned Family Court formulated as many as 4 issues. After taking evidences and hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2015, the learned Family Court rejected the maintenance application, holding that the applicant is living separately without any sufficient cause. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed in appreciating the fact that the applicant's statement about facing cruelty and ill-treatment from her in-laws due to dowry demands, and instances where her husband attempted to harm her, forcing her to live separately for her safety. As the legally wedded wife, she is entitled to maintenance from her husband, which the court didn't adequately acknowledge. The court also didn't consider the statements of the applicant and her witnesses that described the cruel behavior of her in-laws. Furthermore, despite having a sufficient income, the respondent has not provided any financial support to the applicant, who lacks a source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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 respondent presented evidence claiming the applicant lives separately without sufficient cause. However, the applicant alleged she faced physical and mental torture, including demands for Rs.10,000/- cash, a motorcycle, fridge, and washing machine, and even attempts on her life. She filed a dowry harassment report against the respondent and his family. Although the respondent and his father acknowledged the pending dowry harassment case, the court found the applicant's evidence regarding dowry demands unreliable. The applicant's witnesses failed to specify details of the dowry demands, and one witness contradicted their own affidavit. Therefore, the Court did not find the applicant's claims of dowry demands and torture credible. The respondent claimed the applicant lives separately without sufficient cause. The applicant alleged physical and mental torture by the respondent and his family but failed to provide medical evidence or eyewitness testimony. The respondent's witnesses stated the applicant refused to live with him despite social meetings and counseling. 5 The applicant's witnesses testified about social meetings, but failed to rebut the respondent’s claims effectively. The court found the applicant's evidence insufficient to prove her allegations. 8. The Family Court further observed that the respondent submitted documents (Exhibits D-1 to D-5) as evidence, which were accepted by the court since the applicant failed to rebut them. These documents showed that the respondent had informed about the applicant's departure and counseling was done at the women's police station. Despite counseling, the applicant refused to go with the respondent. The respondent also claimed the applicant was medically unfit for marital life and threatened to commit suicide, if forced into physical relations. The court found that both parties seemed unable to cohabitate due to physical incompatibility issues. However, the applicant failed to prove she had a valid reason to live separately from the respondent. Therefore, the Family Court concluded the applicant lives separately without sufficient cause. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil