1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1092 of 2024 1 - Mamta Gupta W/o Bhagwan Gupta Aged About 50 Years R/o Shiwalay Hotel, Jamnipali Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Bhagwan Gupta S/o Late Kanhaiyyalal Gupta Aged About 63 Years R/o Shiwalay Hotel, Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba, C.G. in MJC No.60/2019 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Camp Court ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.18 12:28:50 +0530 2 / 4 Katghora, Dsitrict Korba, C.G. and made averments that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent before 37 years ago as per the Hindu rituals and out of the said wedlock two sons were also born namely Roshan Gupta and Romesh Gupta. It was further averred that the respondent was having suspicion on the applicant of having illicit relations with other person and because of that he used to harras and torture the applicant physically as well as mentally. She further averred that the respondent used to beat the applicant brutally many times and used to throw the applicant out of the house. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said behaviour of the respondent, the applicant approached the learned Family Court and the family Court issued notices to the respondent. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent appeared before the Family Court and denied all the allegations made by the applicant. Thereafter, the learned family Court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after appreciating the all the material available on record dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the Cr.P.C. by order dated 22/07/2024. Hence this revision by the applicant/wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the respondent was working in IBPP Company and thereafter the Company was merged into Indian Oil and after retirement he got enough money. He would next contend that the respondent never paid any amount to the applicant towards her personal expenses. He would next contend that the respondent is running a Hotel in the name of Shvalaya in NTPC Korba which is having 22 rooms. He would next contend that the applicant is 3 / 4 old aged lady and is not earning a single penny, therefore, it is very difficult for her to maintain herself and her two sons. He would lastly contend that the respondent is also having affair outside the marriage, therefore the order passed by the Family Court require interference by this Court and same deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the respondent had purchased a land in the name of the applicant and the applicant sold the said land in the year 2021 for a sale consideration of Rs.85.00 Lakhs and the said amount was deposited in the bank account of the applicant. He would next contend that the applicant is receiving interest on the aforesaid amount to the tune of Rs.4.00 Lakhs per year which would be evident from the income tax return of the year 2022-23. He would next contend that the respondent has also purchased some shares in the name of the applicant and the dividend of the same is being deposited in the account of the applicant and in total she is getting an amount of Rs.3,40,471/- per year. He would lastly contend that the order of the Family Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the applicant has shown her income in the Financial Year 2022-23 Rs.3,40,471/- and the applicant has also received an amount of Rs.85,99,500/- by selling a land which was purchased by the respondent in the name of the applicant. 4 / 4 Further the applicant is also having a land in village Lata admeasuring 38 decimal, a land in Bilaspur admeasuring 63 decimal and a plot in SADA colony admeasuring 1200 sq. feet. The applicant has not been able to rebut the same by producing any evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is able to maintain herself and is having sufficient source of income. 7. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled for any relief from this Court and the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu