1 2025:CGHC:38447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2025 Kiran Gupta W/o Vishal Kumar Gupta, Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Housewife, Caste Teli, R/o Present Address Village Chhindpara Podi, Post Chandramedha, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Vishal Kumar Gupta S/o Munna Prasad Gupta, Aged About 24 Years Occupation Businessman, R/o Village Ambikapur (Mayapur), Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2024, passed by the Family Court Surajpur, District-Surajpur.” 2. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 143 days. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant was married to the non- applicant in the year 2020 according to Hindu rituals. After marriage, the non-applicant and his family members physically and mentally harassed the applicant by taunting her for bringing less dowry. The non-applicant used to beat her after drinking alcohol, on which the applicant's parents and relatives tried to convince the non-applicant and his parents several times, but there was no change in the behavior of the non-applicant. After this, a social meeting was called by the people of the applicant's side on 22.09.2022, in which the non-applicant wrote in stamp that he will keep the applicant well in future and will not harass her in any way and will not consume alcohol. After this, the applicant went to her in- laws' house, but after living well for a few days, the non-applicant again started misbehaving with the applicant. The non-applicant established a love affair with a woman named Saloni, a resident of Gangapur. The non-applicant was beaten the applicant and thrown her out of the house, demanding a motorcycle and two lakh rupees in cash, after which the applicant is living with her parents. While the applicant was staying at her maternal home, on 23.07.2023, the non-applicant came home drunk and started abusing and beating the applicant and threatened to kill her, after which the applicant lodged a written complaint against the non-applicant at Bhatgaon Police Station. It is further pleaded that the non-applicant goes to 3 weekly market and sell clothes. Apart from this, the non-applicant has a pickup vehicle, from which he earns an income of Rs 50 thousand per month respectively. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. 5. The non-applicant herein filed reply and specifically denied and stated that the applicant’s parents and her family never disputed the dowry issue and that in September 2023, the applicant and her mother called the non-applicant and told him that the applicant will never go to his house again and asked him to return the dowry items, to which the non-applicant sent the gifts received from the applicant's parents to her parents' house. The applicant used to fight with the non-applicant over petty matters, the applicant used to abuse the entire family of the non-applicant. The non-applicant tried to convince the applicant several times, but the applicant did not listen. When the non-applicant went to her maternal home to pick up the applicant, the applicant's brother Sonu hit the non-applicant on the head with a wooden plough, due to which the non-applicant fell unconscious, after which the applicant's brother got the non- applicant treated at Bhagwan Hospital. 6. The learned Family Court framed the issue and after adducing the evidence and after going through the document on record, rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is living with her parents. Being aggrieved with impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned, hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order 4 dated 03/12/2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in eye of law. The learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) did not appreciate the evidence brought on record to its proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned Judgment. The learned Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant was compelled to live separately due to the non-applicant's cruelty, neglect, and failure to maintain her, which has been consistently pleaded in her application. The reasoning adopted by the learned Court, that the applicant is voluntarily residing with her parents without just cause, is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is well settled that a woman who has been neglected or deserted by her husband is entitled to reside at her parental home and still claim maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that the non-applicant subjected the applicant to mental and physical cruelty and further the non-applicant has failed and neglected to provide financial support despite having sufficient means. The learned Family Court has erroneously shifted the burden of proof upon the applicant to show valid reason for living separately, although the legal burden lies on the husband to prove that the wife left the matrimonial home without just cause. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, illegal on all counts, and is liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal 5 Procedure Code, seeking a monthly maintenance amount of ₹15,000/- from the non-applicant/husband before the learned Family Court. After due appreciation of the evidence and documents brought on record by both parties, the learned Family Court rejected the application. The Court observed that the applicant had been residing at her parental home without sufficient or justifiable cause and had failed to establish any instance of cruelty or misconduct on the part of the non-applicant. In view of the absence of cogent evidence substantiating the applicant’s claim and relying on settled legal principles, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal