1 2025:CGHC:45415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1098 of 2025 Smt. Santoshi Dahariya W/o Khilawan Dahariya Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Baloda, Police Station And Tehsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Khilawan Prasad Dahariya S/o Manharan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Baloda, Police Station And Tehsil- Baloda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Chatterji, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision impugned order dated 06.06.2025 in MJC No. 32/2024, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the present applicant filed an application before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Champa, stating that she was married to the respondent on 24.07.2010, and from the wedlock, three children were born. It was alleged that after marriage, the respondent continuously harassed her both physically and mentally, demanding a motorcycle, 100 tolas of silver ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash, and a share in her parental property. It was further stated that on 21.07.2018, the respondent physically assaulted her, following which she lodged a report at Police Station Balod, submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir, and also convened a panchayat. It was also alleged that since 2016, she has been living at her parental home as the respondent refused to keep her with him. Based on these allegations, she had earlier filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which was registered as Case No. 5/2018 and subsequently dismissed by the Court at Akaltara on 15.12.2023. Thereafter, she filed another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the children. In reply, the respondent denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant is gainfully employed as a teacher at Chameli Bai Primary School, Baloda, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, along with an additional income of Rs.10,000/- from tuition and Rs.7,000/- from swimming classes, and hence, she has sufficient means to maintain herself. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, by its order dated 06.06.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 32/2024, dismissed the applicant’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while allowing maintenance 3 only for the minor children. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, is erroneous, perverse, and unsustainable in law. It is argued that the applicant is a handicapped lady who has been continuously harassed and neglected by the respondent husband. Despite filing a reply, the respondent failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his claims in Misc. Case No. 32/2024 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that, while the Family Court rightly granted maintenance to minor children for their upbringing and education, it illegally rejected the claim of applicant without proper appreciation of evidence. The respondent, being a police constable with a regular income, has a legal and moral duty to maintain his wife and children. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the applicant be granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for her sustenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Janjgir, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 32/2024. The Family Court carefully considered the submissions of both parties and found that the applicant is 4 gainfully employed as a teacher, earning a regular salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, along with additional income from tuition and swimming classes, thereby having sufficient means to maintain herself. Furthermore, no cogent evidence was produced to substantiate the allegations of continuous harassment or demand of dowry. The Court also took note that an earlier application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act filed by the applicant had already been dismissed on merits. Accordingly, the Family Court, while safeguarding the interests of the minor children by granting them maintenance, rightly dismissed the claim of the applicant for her personal maintenance. This reasoning reflects a fair, just, and proper appreciation of the evidence. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan