1 2025:CGHC:32652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1338 of 2019 Smt. Vijaylata Khare W/o. Shri Ashok Kumar Khare Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village- Barbhatha, Post- Salkhan, Thana And Tehsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village-Sarwani, Thana- Kasdol, District-Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ashok Kumar Khare S/o. Shri Jeevrakhan Lal Khunte Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village- Barbhatha, Post- Salkhan, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh Matter Relates To 125 Of Cr.P.C. Therefore Crime Number Not Registered, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. H.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the maintenance amount may kindly be awarded by allowing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the suitable amount of maintenance may kindly be allowed in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 02.06.2003 at village Sarvani as per the custom prevailing in the Society and as per Hindu customs. After marriage, they started to resides at Barbhata and out of their wedlock, child namely Subham Khare was born and after the birth of child, non-applicant/husband started harassing the applicant, he also given the cruel treatment and demanded a some of Rs. 1,25,000/- cash as dowry therefore, a complaint was made at Police Station Geedam in which the compromise has been taken place. After compromise, they started to resides as husband and wife but later on 01.12.2017 to 09.12.2017 beaten her and kept her in Bathroom and also forcefully given her some tablets and on 16.12.2017, the non-applicant ousted her along with children therefore, the matter was reported at Police Station Sarangarh and she started to resides with her parents at village Sarwani. The applicant is physically sick and she did not in a position to earn for her livelihood and she totally depend upon her parents and the non-applicant did not provided any financial support or maintenance and also not arrange for food though, it is alleged that the non-applicant is working as teacher 3 panchayat and getting salary of Rs. 32,000/- per month and also having 15 Acre of agriculture land from where yearly income is about Rs. 15,00,000/- therefore applicant file an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. sought maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the non-applicant. 4. The notice has been issued against the non-applicant by the Family Court with respect to the application and the non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed the written statement stating that she herself not willing to live married life with the non- applicant and due to dispute a family partition was taken place between the Non-applicant and his father and the applicant having illicit relation with one Muralidhar Chandra and further it is mentioned in the reply that in the community meeting dated 11.03.2018 applicant accepted about the illicit relation with Murlidhar Chandra therefore she did not entitled for any amount of maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. 5. The learned Family Court concerned considering the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 dismissed the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is living separately without any just and sufficient cause. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant preferred the instant revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance as the marriage has been admitted between the parties. The learned Family Court has committed the 4 error of law in rejecting the application for maintenance without any legal reasons and further the factum of marriage has been proved by the witnesses and the applicant has clearly stated about the cruelty which is supported by the evidence of applicant witness but the Family Court has committed an error of law in misreading the evidence. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the applicant did not resides with the non-applicant due to harassment as well as cruelty by the husband and there is sufficient reason to resides separately as he doubted about the character of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed the gross illegality in disbelieving the evidence of the applicant and her witnesses though from perusal of the evidence it is clearly proved that the non-applicant having sufficient means to maintain her wife and the wife having no any source of Income and she is living like a bagger in the society. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves 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 learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly 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. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, the Family Court has rightly concluded that the applicant failed to prove essential elements necessary to claim maintenance 5 under Section 125 CrPC. The foundational requirement, such as sufficient proof of valid marriage and the circumstances compelling the applicant to live separately, have not been satisfactorily established by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be held entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. The Family Court, by carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence, has taken a lawful and justified decision by dismissing the maintenance claim. 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 followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal