1 2025:CGHC:41607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1014 of 2025 Kaushalya W/o Anuklal Aged About 38 Years R/o Vakil Colony Laxman Gali, Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Anuklal S/o Budhva Aged About 50 Years R/o Jainagar (Barpara) Police Station Jainagar Tehsil And District - Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 127/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant belongs to the Gond tribal community and the respondent belongs to the Oraon tribal community. The applicant stated that she has been separated from her first husband, after which she was living with her parents in village Getra. The respondent works as an operator in SECL and the applicant's father also used to work in SECL, where the respondent used to come and go and the applicant and the respondent and the applicant got acquainted RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 with each other. the respondent told the applicant that he was unmarried and wanted to marry her. Both the parties are tribals, to which the applicant agreed. The respondent stated that he did not have any child from his previous wife. In these circumstances, the respondent, for the purpose of enjoying his natural youth and having a child, made the applicant his wife in 2009 by Chpodi Marriage and took her to his house in village Jaynagar, district Surajpur. after marriage, both of them started living a peaceful marital relationship. After spending about 09 years of happy married life, they did not have any child, due to which the respondent started harassing the applicant mentally by calling her barren and started physically hurting her by beating her. the applicant has stated that in the month of April-May 2018, the respondent beat her up and threw her out of her house in Jaynagar, due to which she has come to Surajpur and is living in a rented house and is somehow managing her life. Due to the respondent abandoning her without any sufficient reason, she has been forced to live like an abandoned and helpless woman. She has no source of income, due to which it has become difficult for her to even get two meals a day. the respondent is working as an operator in SECL, he receives a salary of about Rs 60,000/- per month. The applicant needs a monthly maintenance of Rs 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) for herself. The responsibility of maintenance lies with the respondent, but he is not discharging his responsibility. The application for the same was made before the Family Court. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, 3 has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant left the matrimonial house due to the physical and mental cruelty done by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar