1 2025:CGHC:33864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1091 of 2022 Rampayari W/o Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 27 Years Caste Sahu, R/o Chhirra, Tahsil And P.S. Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, At Present R/o Tusma, Tahsil Nawagarh, P.S. Sheorinayaran, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu Aged About 33 Years Caste Teli, R/o Chhirra, Tahsil And P.S. Bilaigarh, At Present R/o Tusma, Tahsil Nawagarh, P.S. Sheorinayaran, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As Bilaspur In Impugned Annexurea-1) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 revision and set-aside impugned order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in Misc. Criminal Case No. 146/2018 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking ₹7,000/- per month as maintenance from the non-applicant, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2009 as per Hindu rites, and they lived together as husband and wife, having two sons from the wedlock. However, the non-applicant later married another woman named Babita and began subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty over dowry demands. On 08.07.2017, he allegedly assaulted the applicant and forced her out of the matrimonial home, after which she has been residing at her parental house without any source of income. The non-applicant, employed at a private company in Delhi, reportedly earns around ₹35,000/- per month. In response, the non- applicant denied all allegations and claimed the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 26.08.2019, dismissed the application, which the applicant contends is erroneous, contrary to law, and passed without proper appreciation of material on record, prompting the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant. The applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to continuous physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the non-applicant, including dowry harassment and his illicit relationship and subsequent second marriage with another woman named Babita. Despite having no source of income and being fully dependent on the non-applicant, the applicant was denied maintenance without proper consideration of the non-applicant’s admitted employment in a private company in Delhi with an income of approximately ₹35,000/- per month. The Family Court failed to appreciate the material facts, income documents, and the applicant’s inability to maintain herself. It also ignored the applicant’s efforts to reconcile and the non-applicant’s refusal to cohabit, and wrongly rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without granting any maintenance, which is against the settled principles of law. The applicant was further deprived of an opportunity to produce her witnesses. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant is entitled to a fair maintenance amount and reserves the right to raise additional grounds and file further documents at the time of hearing. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the 4 learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, rightly dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. The Court observed that despite the claim of marriage and allegations of cruelty, the applicant failed to substantiate her case with cogent and credible evidence. The non-applicant had denied the allegations and the applicant could not prove the income of the non-applicant or her own inability to maintain herself in a manner that would justify the grant of maintenance. The Family Court, therefore, rightly held that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under the given facts and circumstances. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan