1 2025:CGHC:3652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1130 of 2024 Smt. Tulsi Sahu W/o Manoj Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Demar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus Manoj Sahu S/o Atmaram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mujgahan, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appeared nor any representation made on behalf of the non-applicant to press this revision on repeated calls. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure A- 1) and may kindly be pleased to award suitable maintenance amount of Rs.30,000/- per month to the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband) was solemnized on 11.05.2013 and out of their wedlock, a son was born in the year 2014 and he lives with the non-applicant/husband. The present applicant (wife) has filed application under Section 125 of CrPC with application for grant of interim maintenance alleging that after marriage, non-applicant used to torture the applicant on account of dowry and used to torture the applicant questioning the character of the applicant. It is an admitted fact in the case that non-applicant is a Teacher in Government School, Kanker and the maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- demanded by the applicant is on the ground that the applicant is not a working woman and is unable to maintain herself. Due to lack of financial hardship, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the non- applicant. 4. The reply filed by the Non-applicant on 13.10.2023, denying the allegation made by the applicant. 5. The learned Family Court after framing issues and after taking evidence on record came to the conclusion that applicant without sufficient reason is not living with the non-applicant and therefore, rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC vide impugned order dated 04.07.2024. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court without analyzing the evidence and document placed on 3 record had came to the conclusion that since applicant without any sufficient reason, is living in her parental house and applicant having illicit relation some other person due to which non-applicant has left the applicant. He further submits that the non-applicant has not lodged any report nor any case against the applicant regarding applicant is having illicit relationship with some other person, therefore, the finding of the learned Family Court is on presumption, thus the impugned 04.07.2024 is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that it is admitted fact that the applicant is legally wedded wife of non-applicant and since non-applicant is a Teacher in Government School earning monthly salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the learned Family Court without assigning any sufficient reason, rejected the application filed by the applicant. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record which deserve to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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. 30,000/-per month before the learned Family Court. After 4 considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant without sufficient reason is not living with the non-applicant. 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 follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal