1 2025:CGHC:27218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 31 of 2018 Smt. Kanti Paikra W/o Shri Baldev Sai Painkra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Devri, Tahsil Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Baldev Sai Painkra S/o Shri Dileshwar Sai Painkra, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Jambahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Parasmani Shriwas, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure A-1), learned Family Court Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Case No. 56/2017, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. The marriage between them was solemnized on 07.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. After about one month of cordial marital life, the applicant came to know that the non-applicant was having an illicit relationship with his sister- in-law. When the applicant objected to this, the non-applicant started assaulting her, using abusive language, and even denied her food. When the applicant fell ill, the non-applicant refused to get her treated, due to which her health deteriorated and she had to return to her parental home for treatment. Even after recovery, the non- applicant refused to bring her back. A village-level social meeting was held regarding the issue, but the non-applicant did not mend his behavior and continued his misconduct. He is not providing any financial support to the applicant. On the advice of the local Station House Officer (SHO), the applicant approached the Court by filing this application. The non-applicant earns his livelihood through agricultural activities and masonry work. Despite having sufficient means, the non-applicant has failed to provide any financial assistance to the applicant. The applicant has no source of income to support herself. Therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- from the non-applicant to meet their basic needs of livelihood, medical expenses and other. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 3 30.11.2017, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. filed by the applicant, was rejected. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record, passed the order. He further submits that this application was moved after completing 03 years of marriage and there is sufficient materials available on records to give the interim maintenance. The applicant is not left the house / company of the non-applicant with her own will be she was prohibited to live with the non-applicant therefore she has legal right to get the interim maintenance from the non-applicant. The learned Family Court in a very arbitrary manner without properly appreciating the material and documents, dis-allowed the interim maintenance application, which is illegal and the non-applicant had started ill-treatment and marpit with the applicant just after one month of marriage. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant is living separately from the non-applicant on her own accord. At no 4 point has the non-applicant refused to maintain the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has not examined any social witnesses, nor any of her siblings or parents, to support her allegations of continued harassment. Therefore, based on the above overall analysis, the applicant has completely failed to establish that she is residing separately from the non-applicant for just and sufficient reasons. The mere fact of a valid marriage and residing separately at her parental home does not, in itself, entitle the applicant to claim maintenance. To obtain maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant must prove that she is living separately for a justifiable reason and that the applicant has failed to discharge his legal obligations without sufficient cause. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal