1 2025:CGHC:34622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1082 of 2022 Smt. Kunti Chakradhari W/o Gajendra Chakradhari @ Gajendra Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 55, Pulgaon, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Gajanand Chakradhari @ Gajendra Kumar R/o Village Parkhanda, Ward No. 18, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhmatari Chhattisgarh Presently Address Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1079/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that in the application under Section 125 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of CrPC it was pleaded that the marriage was solemnized between the parties as per Hindu Rituals on 12.12.2015 and after the marriage, the wife residing with the respondent in in-law's house at village Parkhanda and after two months of marriage, she was subjected to demand of dowry, at the time of marriage, her father spent Rs. 10 lakhs for marriage. The husband admitted that he has love relation with a girl interruption the same, she was subjected to assault. It was pleaded that on 18.02.2017 when she was alone in her parent's house, she was subjected to molestation by the father-in-law. The incident was informed to the parents and thereafter her father took her to his house and thereafter on 22.02.2017, they requested the husband to get her back, but he refused and the matter was reported to S.P. Durg on 24.08.2017. It was pleaded that she wants to resides with the husband. The husband is manufacturer of bricks and earns Rs.50,000/- per month and he is neglecting to maintain the wife and she is unable to maintain herself, thus the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month is claimed as 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 rejected 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 husband questioned the character of wife in his written statement and also in his statement, which is a sufficient reason 3 for a wife to reside separately, even there is a allegation of molestation against the father in-law on 28.02.2017 and it was reported to the S.P. on 24.08.2017 on denial of the husband to take her back, hence the same is also a sufficient reason to reside separately. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 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 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1079/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar