1 2025:CGHC:28585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1161 of 2019 Manju W/o Ramphal Aged About 28 Years Presently R/o Jhansi P. S. Surajpur, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ramphal S/o Late Manohar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Nevra, Thana And Tahsil Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Revision may kindly be allowed and the Order dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure A/1), passed in Misc. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No. 277/2019, By Learned Family Judge (Family Court), Surajpur (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside and suitable & adequate maintenance may kindly be awarded to the revisioner as pleaded in the application, filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the Revisioner/Applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) seeking monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 from the Respondent/Non-Applicant. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.04.2001 as per Hindu rites, and two children were born out of the wedlock. Initially, the relationship was cordial, but over time, the Respondent began subjecting the Revisioner to mental and physical cruelty. In September 2015, the Respondent allegedly forced the Revisioner to sign blank papers and drove her out of the matrimonial home. Despite a police complaint, no action was taken. Facing financial hardship, the Revisioner sought maintenance, and her application was transferred to the Family Court after its establishment. The Respondent filed a reply, and eventually, the Family Court dismissed the application on 31.07.2019, primarily on the ground that the Revisioner had signed a consent letter. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed material irregularity and 3 passed the impugned order (Annexure A-1) without proper application of mind. The Court failed to consider that the Revisioner/ Applicant, being a young woman with no independent source of income, is solely responsible for maintaining herself. Rejection of her claim for maintenance has adversely affected her right to live with dignity, pushing her towards destitution and vagrancy. The Trial Court overlooked the dire financial condition of the Applicant and erred in both facts and law by ignoring the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court in similar matters. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a welfare legislation aimed at preventing the neglect of wives, children, and parents, ensuring that they are not left impoverished or forced into immoral circumstances. The learned Family Court, however, failed to appreciate the true spirit and object of the provision, and its findings are contrary to the material available on record and not supported by legal evidence. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. after due appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. It was clearly established that the Revisioner/Applicant had voluntarily signed a consent letter, which indicated her willingness to separate and not claim maintenance, 4 thereby weakening her stand. The Court rightly observed that there was no sufficient justification for her living separately or for denying the legitimacy of the consent document. Further, no cogent evidence was produced to prove continued cruelty or neglect by the Respondent that would warrant a maintenance order. The Family Court, therefore, passed a reasoned and lawful order, keeping in view the settled legal principles, and no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal 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 Rahul Dewangan