1 2025:CGHC:30946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1115 of 2019 Menka Verma W/o Keshav Singh Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Police Station Tehsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Keshav Singh Verma S/o Yashvant Singh Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post - Chaurenga Police Station Simga District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this applicant and modify the order dated 31.08.2019 passed in Criminal MJC ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:19 +0530 2 Case No. 195/2018 passed by the Learned Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara, (C.G.) and award maintenance to the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are the applicant and the respondent tied the knot on 30.04.2006 as per Hindu rites and observances. The applicant was sent to her matrimonial house after completing the ceremonial rituals. For the first year after the marriage, there were no grievances between the parties. However, after the completion of one year, the parents of the respondent started harassing the applicant, demanding that she enter into motherhood and give them a grandchild. Due to the constant pressure from the parents of the respondent, the applicant agreed to conceive a child but was unable to do so. For this reason, the parents of the respondent, and the respondent himself, started harassing the applicant, alleging that she was infertile. The respondent took the applicant to a hospital for a check-up, where it was found that the respondent himself was impotent and infertile. The respondent could not accept the fact of his infertility and started harassing the applicant, with the support of his parents, both mentally and physically. The harassment by the respondent escalated day by day. The applicant, due to the threatening behavior of the respondent, continued to endure the cruelty and harassment, but when it became intolerable, the applicant was compelled to leave the respondent’s house. After this incident, the parents of the applicant called the respondent to discuss and resolve the matrimonial issues, but the respondent did not pay any heed. It is an admitted fact that the respondent owns 60-65 acres of land and also runs a hardware business as a side business, earning 3 more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, whereas the applicant, though literate, is unemployed. The respondent filed an application for the dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Bhatapara. The applicant also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance from the respondent on 05.09.2018, including an application for interim maintenance before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.). 4. After taking the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, Bemetara, without considering the undeniable evidence on record, dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., holding that the applicant had left her matrimonial house of her own free will, and therefore, was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara in Criminal MJC No. 195/2018 is contrary to law and is liable to be modified in accordance with the evidence on record. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant did not leave her matrimonial house of her own free will, but was compelled to leave due to daily torment and cruelty inflicted by the respondent, who could not accept the fact that he was sterile. The respondent and his parents abused and subjected the applicant to cruelty on a daily basis, after which she was assertively sent to her paternal home. He submits that there is no evidence or testimony from the respondent to show that the applicant went to her paternal home of her own will and did not return. In fact, immediately after sending the applicant to her paternal home, the respondent sent 4 her a legal notice and filed an application for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Bhatapara. The father of the applicant, Vishram Singh (A.W.-02), in his deposition under Order 18 Rule 04, distinctly stated that the respondent sent the applicant to her paternal home and never came to take her back, which clearly shows that the respondent never intended to keep the applicant with him as his wife. He further submits that the respondent, Keshav Singh Verma (R.W.- 01), in his deposition under Order 18 Rule 04, distinctly stated that he owns land in his name, which he acquired after partition from his brothers. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, the respondent made false statements, including the claim that he was unemployed and that his married sisters, who are living with him, are dependent on him. The respondent also admitted that he earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. In his deposition, the respondent further admitted that he is sterile and was undergoing treatment but did not continue the medication as prescribed by the doctor. All these contentions clearly show that the applicant was forcefully sent to her paternal home, a fact that the learned court below failed to appreciate. The father of the respondent, Bhagwat Verma (R.W.-02), in his deposition under Order 18 Rule 04, distinctly stated that while the applicant was living with them as their daughter-in-law, she never insulted them. He further deposed that after the applicant went to her paternal home, neither did they go to bring her back, nor was any social meeting organized in the village for reconciliation. All the statements made by the witness in his affidavit are based on false facts fabricated by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the 5 applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and observed that the applicant left her matrimonial house of her own free will, and therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 9. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek