1 2025:CGHC:38440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 954 of 2025 Smt. Minakshi Vaishnav W/o Shri Ritu Paran Vaishnav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Doda Tehsil And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Ritu Paran Vaishnav S/o Ganesh Das Vaishnav, Aged About 46 Years (Software Engineer), R/o Prayag Sadan, House No. 657a, Sahajmarg State Bank Colony, Opposite The House Of Mrityunjay Dubey, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 85 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case for its kind perusal. 2. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 pleased to issue an order to quash and set aside the order dated 22.01.2025 (AnnexureP-1)wherein the trial Court has dismissed the petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance to the revisionist. 3. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- monthly to the revisionist as maintenance.” 4. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant with the non- applicant was solemnised on 14.05.2006 according to Hindu rites & rituals and since then the applicant has been residing with the non- applicant till the year 2020. After celebrating 'Teej tyohar', when the applicant returned to her matrimonial home, the non-applicant and the in- laws of the applicant demanded Rs.25,00,000/- and illegally denied the applicant to live in her matrimonial home unless she and her family members fulfill their greed for money. Helplessly, the applicant with her brother returned back to her parent home and is residing with them since the year 2020. It is further alleged that the applicant tried number of times to get back to her matrimonial home and live with her husband and in laws but unfortunately the non-applicant and the in laws of the applicant did not accept her and deprived the applicant from her conjugal rights by not allowing her to reside in her matrimonial home with her husband because of the fact that neither the applicant nor her family members are fulfilling the illegal demand of providing Rs.25,00,000/- to the non- applicant. The reason for which the applicant was harassed by her husband and her in-laws is because after more than 10 years of marriage, no child has been born out of the wedlock and the applicant is victimized by the husband and the in-laws for the same. As a result, the applicant and non-applicant, through In vitro fertilization have tried to get 3 a test tube child but it did not succeed and during the process it was discovered that it was not the applicant in fault for not able to get conceive with a child but the non-applicant. It is evident from the facts and the circumstances that it is the non-applicant who is impotent and not the applicant because of which no child has been born out of the said wedlock. Also, the said fact of impotency has not been disputed by the non-applicant as the medical reports of the applicant prove that she is capable and healthy to conceive. The medical report of various tests undergone by the appellant also proves that the revisionist is healthy and efficient to conceive. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is well- educated and a software engineer earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and is capable of providing Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant in the form of maintenance so that she can fulfilled her basic needs and sustain her life. It is also pertinent to mention that the applicant is un-employed and is wholly dependent and sustaining on her parent family for survival and fulfillment of her basic needs. Along with this, the applicant is only qualified till matriculation and have not attained further education. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance from the non- applicant. 5. On the other hand, the non-applicant has also submitted evidence in support of his written reply. Non-applicant- Rituparna Vaishnav, in his chief examination, denied the allegations of subjecting the applicant to physical and mental harassment due to childlessness after marriage. He presented evidence of having made sincere efforts for her medical treatment, including two attempts at test-tube baby procedures in Raipur. He further stated that on 19.08.2020, the applicant went to her parental home for a festival but did not return, and later demanded ₹25,00,000/- 4 from him and refused to live with him, which he denied with supporting evidence. Additionally, he testified that the applicant and her family often showed a sense of superiority over his family, belittling him and his parents. After the murder of his brother, due to his father’s ill health, he resigned from his job to stay home and care for his parents. He also stated that the applicant left for her parental home in 2020 on her own will, pressured him for divorce, and refused to return. 6. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. The learned Family Court has observed from the applicant’s own evidence that there exists no substantial proof of physical or mental cruelty committed by the non- applicant. Consequently, the claim of the applicant regarding living separately from the non-applicant on reasonable grounds could not be proved beyond doubt. The Court found this claim to be unacceptable and unsupported by evidence. Further, the applicant has failed to establish that she is residing separately from the non-applicant due to valid and justified reasons such as physical or mental cruelty. On this basis, the applicant is not found entitled to claim maintenance from the non- applicant under the law. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court did not appreciate the fact that when the applicant returned to her matrimonial home from parental home after 'Teej Tyohar', the husband and the in laws demanded Rs.25,00,000/- from the applicant and decided not to allow the her to live in her matrimonial home unless the applicant fulfill their greed for money which amounts to mental cruelty. He further submits that the applicant tried number of times to get back to her matrimonial home and live with her husband and in laws but 5 unfortunately the husband and the in laws of the applicant did not accept her and deprived the applicant from her conjugal rights because of the fact that neither the applicant nor her family members are fulfilling the demand of providing Rs.25,00,000/- to the non-applicant. He further submits that the applicant is un-employed and is wholly dependent and sustaining on her family for survival and fulfillment of her basic needs. Moreover, the applicant is qualified till matriculation and have not attained further education. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the similar matter which has been decided by this Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1264/2022. In the instant case, the wife was living separately from her husband as he was impotent and claimed maintenance in which the Hon'ble High Court rejected the criminal revision filed by the applicant and upheld the order of the Family Court, Jashpur wherein the Court has allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered Rs.14,000/- a month to the wife. He also submits that the applicant has co-operated with her husband and in-laws by undergoing various medical tests and in vitro fertilization for having a test tube child but unfortunately due to the impotency of the non-applicant (husband), the revisionist is unable to Conceive. The applicant has lived in her matrimonial home in spite of the mental and psychological harassment of her husband and in-laws for 12 years and even after the illegal demand of Rs.25,00,000/- and not allowing the applicant to live in her matrimonial home which deprives the her from the conjugal rights, the applicant along with her family members have tried endless number of times to restore the family relation by settling the issue. The non-applicant, imprudently have shown callous convictions and have not shown mutual support for restoring the conjugal rights of the revisionist. He further submits that the 6 findings of the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record which deserve to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant against the non- applicant, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/-per month. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, after a thorough appreciation of the facts and material on record, rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance. The rejection was based primarily on the applicant’s own admission and the lack of substantial evidence to support her allegations of physical or mental cruelty by the non-applicant. The Court observed that the applicant failed to establish, by cogent and credible evidence, that she was compelled to live separately from the non-applicant due to any valid or legally justifiable reasons. Her claim of residing apart on the grounds of cruelty was found to be unsubstantiated and lacking in probative value. In the absence of proof of such cruelty or any other reasonable cause, the applicant was held not entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of the applicable law. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7 13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal