1 2025:CGHC:24927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 772 of 2016 Smt. Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Jitendra Sahu, Aged About 27 Years D/o Jagdish Prasad Sahu, R/o Village Tundri, Presently Residing At Chandaniya Para Janjgir, P. S. And Tehsil - Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jitendra Kumar S/o Ramcharan Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Saraswati Colony Khamtarai Bilaspur, P. S. And Tehsil - Bilaspur (Sarkanda), District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 230/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, has rejected RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage between applicant and respondent was solemnized on 24.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs at Village Tundri. There is no issues out of their wedlock. The applicant filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given to the respondent and his parents but they subjected the applicant with cruelty and demanded dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs, therefore, the applicant lodged F.I.R. against them on 06.02.2013 at Police Station Bilaigarh. The case for offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of I.P.C. is pending against Jitendra Kumar (husband), Ramcharan (father-in-law), Smt. Kumari Bai (mother-in-law) and Narendra Kumar (brother-in-law). Earlier applicant had preferred application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Bilaigarh and same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application in Janjgir. She further pleaded that the respondent is posted as Sikshakarmi Grade-II and getting Rs. 30,000/- per month. He has 10 acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 2 lakhs per annum. The father of respondent is working as Director in agriculture department and getting Rs.75,000/- per month. She further pleaded that she has no means of income and she is dependent on her father and claimed Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent filed reply and stated that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient reason, she is working as nurse and decree under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed but she is non-complying the decree. The applicant examined herself as A.W.-1 and her father Jagdish as A.W.-2 whereas 3 respondent examined himself as NA.W.-1, Ramcharan Sahu as NA.W.- 2, Chatram Sahu NA.W.-3 and Roshan Kumar NA.W.-4. The learned Family Court held that the evidence of applicant and her father is not reliable, she has not examined any independent witness in support of her case and she is residing alongwith her father without any reason and further decree under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed in favor of the respondent therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by learned Family Court is illegal and contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant is dependent upon her father therefore she is entitled for maintenance. In Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there is no provision to the effect that if the decree under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against wife, she would not be entitled for maintenance. The applicant is totally dependent upon her old aged father. If applicant is earning person even though the husband cannot be absolved from his obligation to pay maintenance to his legally wedded wife. The respondent is working as Sikshakarmi Grade-II and he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month therefore he is capable to pay maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 230/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, has 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 4 passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 230/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar