1 2025:CGHC:29216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1255 of 2019 Smt. Pragati Goswami W/o Shri Chudamani Goswami Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Deeparapara, Ward No. 13, Sarangarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Krishi Upaj Mandi Awasiya Parisar Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Chudamani Goswami S/o Shri Onkarpuri Goswami Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Deeparapara, Ward No. 13, Sarangarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. H.V. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by learned Family Court Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.145/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applciant was married to the respondent on April 28, 2015, according to Hindu customs in Janjgir. Although her parents gave gifts according to their means at the time of marriage, a few days later, the respondent and his family members started harassing her mentally and physically, demanding dowry, including a four- wheeler, gold nose ring, hand towel, waist chain, and hair ornament. The respondent and his family members would not allow her to talk to her parents and taunted her, calling her barren and useless because she had not conceived. On January 22, 2017, the respondent and his family members abused her, beat her, and even instigated her to hang herself, locking her in a room. When her neighbor, Joginder Thakur, came to her aid, the respondent and his family members continued to abuse them. When the applicant's parents and uncle arrived the next day, the respondent and his family members started quarreling with them, asking them to take the applicant back. A report was lodged at the Sarangarh police station, and an application was filed at the Family Counseling Center for reconciliation. However, the respondent failed to appear, and the case was dismissed. The 3 applicant filed a report against the respondent and his family members at the Janjgir Police Station on May 4, 2017, for dowry harassment. The respondent is not taking care of her or providing for her maintenance. She is unemployed and has no source of income. The respondent, on the other hand, is working as a Shikshakarmi Class-1 and earns a monthly salary of Rs.16,000/-. He also earns income from agricultural land and is capable of maintaining the applicant. Therefore, she sought monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and deny the claims and allegations alleged by applicant / wife. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent and his family members began torturing the applicant for dowry demands after a few years of peaceful married life, and she was left uncared for, forcing her to live permanently at her parental home. He further submits that after a few months of peaceful married life, the respondent and his family members began torturing the petitioner for dowry demands and even threatened to kill her by hanging. The petitioner informed her parents about the situation, who then came to her aid. With the help of the police station in Sarangarh, her parents took her away from the respondent's house. Despite efforts by the petitioner's parents and 4 relatives to intervene and resolve the matter, the respondent and his parents refused to reconcile. Consequently, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the respondent and his parents under Section 498(A) of the IPC at the Janjgir Police Sation. Given these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Family Caourt is liable to be set-aside, and the petitioner is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify living separately from the respondent and her inability to maintain herself. In fact, the applicant is an educated, literate, and healthy woman, capable of working and earning, after considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that being a married wife and living separately does not automatically entitle her to maintenance. 5 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil