1 2025:CGHC:36490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 94 of 2024 Smt. Savitri Sahu W/o Shyamjee Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dindol, P.S. Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Shyamjee Sahu S/o Munna Sahu Aged About 26 Years Occupation Rajmistri R/o Village Bhatgaon, P.S. Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.356/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant's marriage to the respondent was solemnized on April 17, 2019, in village Dindol according to Hindu customs. There are no children from the marriage. After the marriage, the applicant lived ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:33 +0530 2 with the respondent for about two months, after which the respondent's mother started harassing her, abusing her, and demanding a motorcycle as dowry. The respondent's mother would threaten the applicant, saying that she would not be allowed to stay with them because she didn't do any work and talked to others. In January 2020, the respondent physically assaulted the applicant and threw her out of the house, taking possession of her 15 tola gold ornaments and a 3-masha gold locket. The applicant has been suffering from diabetes since 2022 and is unable to work due to her illness. The respondent works as a mason, earning Rs. 600-700 per day, and also has agricultural land in the name of his grandfather, Punitaram, from which he earns income. Based on this, the applicant has requested that the respondent be directed to pay her Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent failed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicant. The Family Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that present applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and due to the cruelty inflicted by the respondent, she had left her matrimonial home. The Family Court further failed to consider that the respondent is capable of managing the applicant's livelihood, and therefore, the respondent is able to pay the maintenance amount for the applicant's sustenance, on the other hand the applicant has no means or source of income to survive and 3 is facing significant difficulties in managing her maintenance for survival and livelihood. In contrast, the respondent works as a mason, earning Rs. 600-700/- per day, and also owns 5 acres of agricultural land. Despite this, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC, denying the applicant any maintenance amount. This decision is contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act and the law. He also submits that the applicant is facing significant difficulties in surviving, and the learned Family Court failed to follow the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court rejected the applicant's application under Section 125 of the CrPC without considering the facts and material available on record, despite the respondent's ability to provide support, which is contrary to the law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 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 dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that it is clear from the respondent's side, apart from the evidence of their witnesses, has successfully proved through documentary evidence (Ex. NA-1) of the social meeting notice that the respondent made an effort to bring the applicant back to the matrimonial relationship. However, the applicant herself admitted in her cross-examination that she did not want to live with the respondent, which is why she and her father did not attend the social meeting. On that basis, the Family Court 4 established that the applicant herself chose to live separately from the respondent in the matrimonial relationship, He further observed that from the analysis of the evidence presented by both parties leads to the conclusion that the applicant failed to prove through her evidence that she was separated from the matrimonial relationship due to cruel treatment and abandonment by the respondent. The applicant's admission in her cross-examination proves that she herself does not want to live with the respondent in the matrimonial relationship. On that basis, the applicant's claim for maintenance against the respondent on the grounds of living separately for a justifiable reason is not proved. 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 Abhishek