1 2025:CGHC:48985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 856 of 2021 Smt. Dipika Jain W/o Shivendra Jain, Aged About 33 Years (D/o Subhash Agrawal) R/o 10/33, Ispat Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Gujrati Gali, Raigarh, Tahsil and District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Shivendr Jain S/o Murlidhar Jain, Aged About 34 Years Occupation Businessman R/o 10/33, Ispat Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-135/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.25 16:50:26 +0530 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the applicant and the respondent were married on 21.06.2009 according to customary rites and rituals at Village Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg. Out of the wedlock, twin sons were born on 26.02.2011. The applicant further stated that the respondent and his parents threatened her with demands for dowry, due to which she lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members at the concerned police station. The applicant also stated that while she was residing at her matrimonial home, the respondent and his parents continued to threaten her for dowry. When the applicant opposed these unlawful demands, the respondent and his parents again threatened her and physically assaulted her while using abusive language. Upon opposing this conduct, the applicant was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter, the respondent left the applicant at her parental home, and since then, she has been residing there. The respondent has not visited the applicant or their minor children, nor has he attended any functions related to the children. Despite attempts by the applicant’s family to resolve the matter through social mediation, the respondent and his family refused to reconcile. Due to the continued harassment and misbehavior by the respondent and his parents, the applicant has been suffering from mental health issues and is now unable to perform any work. Meanwhile, the respondent runs a clothing business in the main market of Bhilai city and earns approximately Rs.70,000/- per month. Despite being financially capable, the respondent has failed to fulfill his legal obligations. Therefore, the 3 applicant filed the present application seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the respondent/husband. 3. The respondent filed his reply to the said application, denying all adverse allegations made against him. However, he admitted that the marriage was solemnized between the parties and that twin sons were born. He claimed that he had always taken proper care of the applicant, but it was she who threatened him and his parents by filing false cases of domestic violence. He further alleged that the applicant is residing separately at her parental home without any just or sufficient reason and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, proceeded with the trial. It is respectfully submitted that the learned trial Court framed the issues and ultimately decided the matter against the applicant, dismissing her claim. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed an error in dismissing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance, which is contrary to the material evidence and pleadings available on record. The learned Family Court failed to award any maintenance in favour of the applicant, despite the applicant proving cruelty on the part of the respondent and his family members. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court passed the impugned order against the findings of fact, relying solely on the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, in the Domestic Violence case, wherein the 4 respondent and his relatives were acquitted. It is pertinent to mention that the said order has been challenged by the applicant before this Court in an appeal, which is still pending. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law. The learned Family Court failed to consider the conduct of the respondent and his family members, who had threatened the applicant with dowry demands and have not made any effort to meet the applicant or their minor children. The applicant is residing separately at her parental home with sufficient and valid reasons. She is facing financial hardship, and therefore, an award of maintenance is necessary considering the present financial status of the respondent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that in the present case as well, the applicant has failed to establish any reasonable ground for living separately from the respondent, and the evidence shows that she is residing separately of her own free will. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the present 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 be transmitted to the Family Court concerned within a week for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti