1 2025:CGHC:29207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1311 of 2019 Smt. Anju Prajapati W/o Neeraj Kumar Prajapati Aged About 26 Years Present Pwd Colony, Bemetara Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Neeraj Kumar Prajapati S/o Khaderu Prajapati Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 29, Near Gurudhasidas Mandir, Bapu Nagar, Khursipar Zone-2, Bhilai, Police Station Khursipar, Tahsil Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC No. 41/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. The application was filed on the ground that their marriage was solemnized on 03.12.2017 according to the Hindu rituals and as per the capacity of her parents, adequate gifts by way of cash and jewelry was also given to the respondent and his relatives. on 22.06.19 the applicant filed an application u/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 on the ground that, after her marriage, the respondent herein and his family members started ill-treating the respondent on account of bringing less dowry and the quality of items given by them. The respondent and his family members tried to commit murder of the applicant by setting her on fire and when the applicant informed the incident to his father, the respondent and his family members again harassed the applicant and she was subjected to physical assault and hence, since thereafter, she is residing with her parents and the respondent has not made any efforts to bring her back. She has no source of any earning, whereas the respondent is working as an Air condition repairer and he is earning 15000-20,000/- per month and thereby she has claimed 10,000/- towards her maintenance. 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, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the 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 is a legally married wife of the 3 respondent, therefore, applicant has sufficient reason to reside separately from the respondent and there are ample evidence to suggest that the aplicant was being ill-treated for fulfilling the desires of the respondent and his family members, but the learned Family Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC No. 41/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar