1 2025:CGHC:41283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 981 of 2024 Smt. Manju Patel W/o Parakhram Patel Aged About 32 Years Caste - Marar, R/o Village, Chilahatikala, Police Station/tehsil Daundilauhara, District - Balod (C.G.) Present R/o Kachche-Dafai Ward No. 14, Camp No. 01, Dallirajahara, Police Station - Dallirajahara, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Parakhram Patel S/o Rohitram Patel Aged About 33 Years Caste Marar, R/o - Village, Chilahatikala, Police Station / Tehsil Daundilauhara, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Barun Chakraborty, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Barun Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 set aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 and may kindly be pleased to pass and order of the maintenance amount to the applicant in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, alleging that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 26.06.2021 at Village Ward No. 14, Camp No. 01, Kachchedfai, Dallirajhara, as per the local customs. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent started harassing her over trivial matters, subjected her to physical assault, and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry. It was further alleged that the respondent willfully neglected to maintain and take care of the applicant, compelling her to approach the court. The respondent appeared and denied all allegations. Upon considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance, leading to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be modified, as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant, who had proved that she was subjected to harassment and assault by the respondent, compelling her to live separately. The rejection of maintenance solely on the ground that there was no allegation of dowry demand in the first complaint is erroneous, as non- establishment of dowry demand cannot, by itself, be a ground to 3 deny maintenance. The applicant specifically stated that on 22.05.2023, she was assaulted by the respondent, which is a just and proper reason for living apart. The court also ignored the fact that earlier instances of cruelty had forced her to leave the matrimonial home, and despite a reconciliation attempt through a family meeting, she was again tortured and had to leave. The respondent earns approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, has no other liabilities, while the applicant has no source of income, yet the learned court rejected the claim without sufficient reason, contrary to the settled principle that the wife is entitled to at least one-third of the husband’s income as maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, District- Balod, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances on record, rightly appreciated the material before it and arrived at a just conclusion in rejecting the applicant’s claim for maintenance. The applicant failed to substantiate, through cogent and reliable evidence, the allegations of harassment, physical assault, and demand of dowry as pleaded. The testimony and documents produced did not inspire confidence 4 or establish sufficient cause for living separately so as to entitle her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court, therefore, committed no error, either in law or on facts, in holding that the statutory requirements for grant of maintenance were not fulfilled. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan