1 2025:CGHC:28151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 990 of 2018 1. Smt. Suhagini Bai W/o Shri Ram Kishor Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Dhandh Amba, Police Station and Tahsil - Duldula , Civil and Revenue, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village - Chongaribahar, Police Station and Tahsil - Kanshabel, Civil and Revenue District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Roshani Bai D/o Shri Ram Kishor Ram Aged About 8 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Suhagini Bai, R/o Village - Dhandh Amba, Police Station and Tahsil - Duldula , Civil And Revenue, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village - Chongaribahar, Police Station and Tahsil - Kanshabel, Civil and Revenue District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicants versus Ram Kishor Ram S/o Shri Sevak Ram Aged About 32 Years Caste - Rauat, R/o Village - Dhandh Amba, Police Station and Tahsil - Duldula, Civil and Revenue District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:08:53 +0530 2 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.126/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is married wife of the respondent, their marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and after solemnizing the marriage ceremony, applicant No.1 has gone to respondent house and started to enjoy their married life and after their wedlock applicant No. 2 has born. After spent few years peacefully of their married life, the respondent and his family members have continue torturing to the applicant No. 1 and did not take care to her minor children applicant No.2 and she has left her parental house in the year 2012.3. Thereafter, the applicant No.1 filed an application before the J.M.F.C Bagicha, Jashpur (C.G.), thereafter the respondent has been compromised with the applicant and started to living with them but from the last 2 years, the applicants have permanently left by the respondent in the parental house of the applicant No.1, then the applicants have started to living there. Thereafter, the applicants have filed an application under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. before the Family Court Jashpur (C.G.) for grant of maintenance. After hearing both the parties, learned Family Court has rejected the petitioners application, only on the ground that the applicants are wife and children of the respondent, they have not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the respondent. Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned judgment/order passed by Family Court Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.), is bad, illegal and also against the eye of law. The learned Family Court has passed order without seeing facts and circumstances of the case and passed erroneous order and wrongly rejected the applicant's application for grant of maintenance. After few year peacefully of their married life, the respondent and his family members have continue torturing to the applicant No.1 and did not take care her minor children also and the applicants have permanently left in the parental house of the applicant No. 1, then the applicants have started to living there and the applicants always ready to living with the respondent. But the learned Family Court did not saw the facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly rejected the applicant's application for grant of maintenance. Therefore order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside and the applicants are entitled to get the maintenance amount. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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 applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife is living separately from the respondent without any proper and sufficient reason. Further, there is no clear evidence in this regard that the applicant is not capable of supporting herself. Merely because she 4 is a married wife, she does not become entitled to receive maintenance money on this basis. As a result, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected under the application filed by the applicant. 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. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti