1 2025:CGHC:32621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 876 of 2021 Smt. Sarita Sahu, W/o Shri Nagesh Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Presently At Pisid, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Nagesh Sahu, S/o Shri Chhedram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Qtr. No. M/161, No.5 Square, Naurojabad, District : Umaria, Madhya Pradesh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision, set aside the impugned order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the Family Court, Balodabazar in MJC No.196 /19 and in effect allow the application filed by the non-applicant/ RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 petitioner herein under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in toto, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 25.05.2018 in Village Piseed, Tahsil Kasdol as per social customs. After marriage, the applicant started residing with the non-applicant at Naurojabad, where the non-applicant is employed with SECL and earns a monthly salary of ₹70,000–80,000. The applicant has alleged that she was subjected to regular physical and mental cruelty by the non-applicant and his mother and sister on account of dowry. Despite bearing this torture for 9–10 months, during which she also became pregnant, her pregnancy was forcibly terminated by administration of medicine without her consent. Thereafter, while visiting the ancestral home in Village Devri, she disclosed her ordeal to her father, and the non-applicant left her there and never returned to take her back. Efforts were made for reconciliation, including through proceedings before the Family Counseling Centre, Balodabazar, where on 29.05.2019, the non-applicant categorically refused to keep the applicant with him. It was only after this that the applicant moved an application on 02.06.2019 to close the counseling proceedings and pursue legal remedies. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home and has no independent source of income. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/-, which was contested by the non-applicant, denying all allegations and attributing cruelty to the applicant herself. The learned trial Court, 3 however, dismissed the maintenance application, holding that the applicant is living separately without sufficient cause. The applicant contends that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that it was the non-applicant who deserted her without reasonable cause and refused to maintain her, despite being financially capable. Therefore, the present revision petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order of rejection. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from gross illegality and misappropriation of facts on record. The finding in Paragraph 15 of the impugned order, wherein the Court concluded that the applicant herself did not wish to reside with her husband, is erroneous, as it overlooks the fact that the applicant withdrew the counseling proceedings only after the non-applicant categorically refused to keep her, as evident from the Counseling Centre proceedings dated 29.05.2019. This clearly reflects that it was the non-applicant who deserted the applicant without any reasonable cause. The learned Court also failed to consider that the non- applicant has not made any arrangement for the maintenance of the applicant, despite being employed with SECL and having sufficient income, which even the Court acknowledged while deciding Issue No.3. Though his exact income was not proved by best evidence, his employment is undisputed, and as per settled law, a wife is entitled to maintenance in proportion to the husband’s financial capacity and standard of living. The Court also erred in holding that the applicant is living separately without sufficient cause, whereas 4 the evidence on record establishes that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to continuous cruelty and neglect. Hence, the applicant is fully entitled to the relief of maintenance, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record. The Court correctly held that the applicant is residing separately without sufficient cause, and that she failed to establish any justifiable reason for deserting the non-applicant husband. The applicant herself had withdrawn the counseling proceedings initiated at the Family Counseling Centre and expressed her intention to lodge criminal proceedings against the non-applicant and his family, which clearly reflects her unwillingness to continue matrimonial life. The Family Court also took note of the fact that the applicant did not produce any independent or corroborative evidence to prove the allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment, and the claim regarding forcible termination of pregnancy remained unsupported. Furthermore, the applicant failed to substantiate her financial needs or the exact income of the non-applicant through credible documents. The Family Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that there was no deliberate refusal or neglect on the part of the non-applicant to 5 maintain the applicant and that she is not entitled to monthly maintenance as claimed. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan