1 2025:CGHC:45676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1101 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sharda Gajendra W/o Narendra Gajendra Aged About 27 Years R/o Tamasivni, P.S. Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Minor Ku. Swati Gajendra D/o Narendra Gajendra Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sharda Gajendra, R/o Tamasivni, P.S. Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Minor Kunal Gajendra S/o Narendra Gajendra Aged About 2 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sharda Gajendra, R/o Tamasivni, P.S. Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Narendra Gajendra S/o Shri Dharam Gajendra Aged About 30 Years R/o Jai Stambh Chowk, Bhandarpuri, P.S. Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /09/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.775/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants with respect to applicant No.1/wife and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month (each) to applicant Nos.2 and 3. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent solemnized their marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and customs in the year 2018, and from their wedlock, applicants No. 2 and 3 were born. After the marriage, she was residing peacefully and happily with the respondent at her matrimonial home. However, after some time, the respondent started harassing and subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, particularly on the issue of insufficient dowry. The respondent expressed unwillingness to continue living with the applicant and ultimately forced her out of the matrimonial home. Due to such harassment and mental torture, the applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and is currently residing at her parental home along with applicants No. 2 and 3. The applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income for her livelihood. The respondent, on the other hand, is employed in a plywood factory and earns a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. 3 Additionally, he owns agricultural land which generates an annual income of approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent. The respondent/non-applicant filed his reply, denying the averments made in the application by the applicant No. 1. However, the learned Family Court, after recording the evidence and considering the pleadings of both the parties has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants with respect to applicant No.1/wife and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month (each) to applicant Nos.2 and 3, Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Family Court, Raipur, is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by applicant No. 1. Despite the applicant being the legally wedded wife of the respondent and fully entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court wrongly dismissed her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without granting any maintenance to her. The applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent, who also forcibly expelled her. The respondent earns a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- from his job and additional income from agricultural land, making him capable of providing maintenance. The Court 4 failed to consider these facts and overlooked the applicant’s financial hardship, including her inability to support herself and her ill mother. The respondent never made efforts to reconcile and repeatedly harassed the applicant over dowry demands. The denial of maintenance violates her legal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the order is therefore liable to be set-aside in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants with respect to applicant No.1/wife and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month (each) to applicant Nos.2 and 3 observing that it has been an admitted fact that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent solemnized their marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and customs in the year 2018, and from their wedlock, applicants No. 2 and 3 were born. Furthermore, based on the evidence and testimonies, it is not clearly established that the applicant No. 1 is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. While the applicant alleged harassment and physical abuse by the respondent, these claims were not adequately supported by specific evidence or complaints. Moreover, it is admitted that the applicant left for her 5 parental home with the respondent’s and his family’s consent during a festival and subsequently refused to return despite efforts made by the respondent and his family to bring her back. Therefore, the question of whether the applicant is justified in living separately from the respondent is held to be unproven. However, regarding the maintenance of the minor children (applicants No. 2 and 3), they have no independent income source. The respondent has stated that he is a laborer supporting his family through wages, which implies that he earns at least the minimum wage. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to applicant No.2 and 3 and granted monthly maintenance to them as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil