1 2025:CGHC:41477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1246 of 2024 Smt. Pancho Bai W/o Dayaram Aged About 66 Years R/o Amareyapara Bhojpur Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Dayaram S/o Lagan Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Khairjhiti Post Madeli Tahsil Chura, District – Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.434/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is an illiterate woman PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:20 +0530 2 with no educational background, no employment, and no independent source of income to maintain herself. The applicant was married to the non-applicant approximately 35 years ago in Village Aamapada, Dharmbandha, District Nuapada, Odisha, as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the applicant began residing with the non-applicant at Khairjhiti. From this wedlock, a son named Shankar Lal Dhruw was born. The applicant and non-applicant initially lived together in a joint family. Their son, Shankar Lal, is currently employed as a Data Entry Operator in the Labour Department at Champa, Janjgir. After one year of their son's birth, the non-applicant, along with his brothers and sister-in-law, began harassing and abusing the applicant, frequently labeling her as a “Tonhi” (witch). Due to this mental harassment, the applicant lost her mental stability. Instead of providing her medical treatment, the non- applicant and his family members threw her out of the matrimonial home, along with her infant son, without any care or concern. The non-applicant and his family allegedly forcibly obtained the applicant's thumb impression on a Farakat-nama (customary divorce deed) and left her, along with her infant son, at her parental home in Village Aamapada, Dharmbandha, District Nuapada, Odisha. Since then, the non-applicant has neither maintained the applicant nor taken any responsibility for the upbringing of their son. In later years, their son, Shankar Lal, who had moved to Champa for work, got married on 27.04.2018. After settling in Champa, he began searching for his mother and eventually located her in Odisha. On 17.09.2022, he brought the applicant to Champa for 3 medical treatment, and she has been residing with him since then. It is submitted that the non-applicant’s elder brother, Bhayaram, and his son, Babulal, have consistently prevented the non-applicant from reuniting with his family and obstructed all efforts made by the son to keep both parents together under one roof. 3. The non-applicant is a resident of Gariyabandh and is engaged in agriculture. He lives in a joint family and earns income jointly with his brother from approximately 12 acres of agricultural land. The family earns approximately ₹10,00,000 per season, totaling ₹20,00,000 annually. The non-applicant, being a co-owner, earns about ₹7,00,000 per annum and is therefore financially capable of maintaining the applicant. The applicant has lived in isolation for nearly 30 years, without any support from the non-applicant, who abandoned her and their infant son. As a result, the applicant frequently fell ill. She has not received any financial support or maintenance during this period. The applicant is now 68 years old, without any source of income, and dependent on her son, who has been taking care of her since 2022. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., along with an interim application, before the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) on 23.11.2022, seeking ₹25,000 per month as maintenance from the non-applicant. Copies of the application and interim application are collectively annexed as Annexure A/2. 4. During the proceedings, the non-applicant filed an application under 4 Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking substitution of their son as a party to the proceedings. The learned Family Court allowed the application, which was subsequently challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. Vide order dated 05.01.2024, passed in W.P. (227) No. 04 of 2024, the Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 and directed the Family Court to complete the trial within six months from the date of production of the High Court's order. The applicant had filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with a list of documents (Form B-I and affidavit), specifically stating that the non-applicant earns approximately ₹7,00,000 per annum from his share of joint agricultural property. The affidavit, in compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 9503/2018, was also submitted. Despite all relevant documents and the applicant’s circumstances—being a 68-year-old abandoned woman with no income—the Learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, passed the impugned order dated 23.07.2024, rejecting the applicant’s claim for maintenance. Hence, this criminal revision is being preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, is erroneous and suffers from non-application of mind. The learned Judge failed to properly consider the contents of the application and overlooked the fact that the applicant is an illiterate woman. The so-called Farakat-nama dated 15.12.1992 holds no legal sanctity and was wrongly relied upon. Furthermore, the learned Judge did not consider that the non-applicant himself admitted in 5 paragraph 10 of his oral evidence that no decree of divorce has been passed by any Court and that no such evidence was brought on record. Additionally, the reply filed by the non-applicant dated 22.02.2024, in paragraph 2, clearly states that the applicant left for her paternal home due to violence. However, it does not mention that she left on her own accord or voluntarily withdrew from the matrimonial home. Despite these crucial facts, the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, leading to a perverse and unjust finding. Thus, the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in the present case as well, the applicant has been living separately from the non- applicant for approximately 30 years. From the oral evidence and the Farakatnama(Exhibit N.A.-01), it is evident that she is residing separately with mutual consent. Further, in this case too, the applicant has not claimed maintenance as a divorced wife. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid precedent, the applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance from the non-applicant. As such, there 6 is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 10. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti