1 2025:CGHC:28193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1191 of 2019 1. Shashi Lata Suryawanshi W/o Shri Rajendra Suryawanshi Aged About 26 Years D/o Shri Shaturhan Aged About 26 Years Cast - Suryawanshi,r/o Village - Sukharikala, Police Station - Kartala, Tahsil - Barpali, Civil And Revenue District - Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Naila, Ward No. 2, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir , Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., 2. Diksha S/o Shri Rajendra Suryawanshi, Aged About 2 1/2 Years . Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Lata Suryawanshi, Cast - Suryawanshi,r/o Village - Sukharikala, Police Station - Kartala, Tahsil - Barpali, Civil And Revenue District - Korba Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village - Naila, Ward No. 2, Police Station And Tahsil - Janjgir , Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., ... Applicants versus Rajendra Suryawanshi S/o Shri Babu Lal Aged About 32 Years Caste - Suryawanshi, R/o Village - Sukharikala , Police Station- Kartala, Tahsil - Barpali, Civil And Revenue District - Korba Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.105/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is married wife of the respondent, their marriage was solemnized prior to 7 year as per Hindu Rites and Customs at the place of Village- Naila, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and after solemnizing the marriage ceremony, applicant No.1 has gone to respondent house and started to enjoy their married life and after their wedlock two children's were born along with the Respondent No. After spending few years peacefully of their married life, respondent as well as his family members have continue been torturing to the applicant No.1 for demand of dowry and alleging on her character also. During the course funeral ceremony of mother of the applicant No.1, they had came at the place of Village Naila, thereafter respondent has left the applicants there and did not take care to them and thereafter, the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. before the Family Court Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) for grant of maintenance and after hearing the case, notice has been issued to the respondent, thereafter, the respondent has been present before the learned Family Court and filed his reply and accept the applicants are his wife and Children but denied other pleadings of the petitioners. Thereafter, the 3 learned Family Court has examined the witnesses from both sides and after hearing both the parties, learned Family Court has rejected the applicants’ application, only on the ground that the applicants are wife and children of the respondent but the applicant No.1 is capable/ responsible to earning herself, therefore they have not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the respondent. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned judgment/order passed by Family Court Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), is bad, illegal and also against the eye of law. Therefore order passed by the learned court below is liable to be set aside and the applicants are entitled to get the maintenance amount from the respondent. The learned Family Court did not seen the facts and circumstances of the case and passed erroneous order without applying the judicial mind as well as wrongly rejected the applicant's application for grant of maintenance. Therefore order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside and the applicants are entitled to get the maintenance amount from the respondent. After spent few year peacefully of their married life, the respondent and his family members have continue torturing to the applicant No.1 for demand of dowry and the applicants have permanently left in the parental house of the applicant No.1, then the applicants have started to living there. But the learned Family Court did not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly rejected the applicant's application for grant of maintenance. Therefore order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside and the applicants are entitled to get the maintenance amount. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent/husband has presented his evidence and said that he had gone to take the applicant No.1 and he himself got his treatment done by staying at the house of applicant No.1. He was ready to take the applicant No.1 from the Court itself, but she does not want to go. It is also proved that the applicant No.1 Shashilata is fully capable of maintaining herself. It has not been proved that the respondent demanded dowry from applicant No.1 and harassed her in other ways and left her at her parental home. Thus, the respondent is deliberately neglecting to maintain the applicants despite being capable and having sufficient means and the applicants are living separately from the respondent due to sufficient reasons, this fact has not been proved by the evidence available in the record. As a result, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected under the application filed by the applicant No.1/wife. 7. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the 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 of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti