1 2025:CGHC:48078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1157 of 2025 Smt. Pinky Goutam W/o Gajendra Goutam, Aged About 26 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gandhi Chowk, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Gajendra Goutam S/o Shri Devnath Goutam, Aged About 28 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gandhi Chowk, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.06.2015 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.254/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant states that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 19.04.2013 according to Hindu rites and no child has been born from the wedlock. After the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent and his family members towards her was consistently cruel and humiliating. They taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry and for not providing a four-wheeler vehicle, neglected her basic needs, and treated her like a domestic servant. Instigated by his family, the respondent physically assaulted the applicant, and though she complained to Supela Police Station, no offence was registered on the ground that it was a family matter. The respondent and his relatives abused her as “tonhi” (witch) and barren, forbade her from touching household items claiming she was impure, and threatened that the respondent would remarry. On 10.07.2017 she lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Durg. To harass and evict her, the respondent allegedly placed tenants near her room and installed CCTV cameras to record her, accusing her of illicit relationships. On 27.11.2018 she again submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg. The applicant further alleges that she was abused with words such as “unchaste,” “prostitute,” and “witch,” and falsely accused of having an illicit relationship with the son of a tenant named Chandrika, even though her room was unsecured and could be entered by anyone. The respondent and his family thereby subjected her to 3 continuous mental and physical cruelty and pressured her to leave the matrimonial home. When she began training with a private medical practitioner, the respondent went to her workplace, abused her, and forced her to stop. Since 2017 they have persistently tried to expel her from the marital home. The respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Durg, which he later withdrew after she applied for interim maintenance. He again filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where on 06.04.2019 the Court ordered him to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, but he deliberately failed to appear and that petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on her parental family. She has been deserted without sufficient cause. The respondent works at a Maruti car showroom earning about Rs.20,000/- per month, and his mother owns commercial shops and a house with 24 tenants yielding approximately Rs.1,70,000/- monthly rent. In addition, the respondent holds 0.6450 hectares of agricultural land at village Ghogha, P.H. No.16, Rani Mandal Gundai, Tehsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, producing an annual income of about Rs.5,00,000/-, and his family owns further agricultural land in the same village with an annual income of around Rs.20,00,000/-. On these grounds, the applicant prays for an order directing the respondent to pay her maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 4 Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant/wife. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is bad in law, improper, and unreasonable. The Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has no independent source of income, and is living with her parents while struggling for survival. It overlooked the evidence and depositions presented and, without sufficient basis, concluded that the applicant had not disclosed her income, that both parties earn similar amounts, and that she is residing with the respondent. Relying on these unfounded assumptions, the Court wrongly dismissed the applicant’s petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 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 learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that fact that the applicant (wife) is well-educated, gainfully employed as an EMT with a government health department, and earning income comparable to the respondent (husband). It is also established that she continues to reside in the respondent’s house without bearing rent or utility expenses and that she concealed her earnings in her pleadings. 5 In these circumstances, the Court holds that she is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent and therefore dismissed her maintenance application under Section 125 of CrPC. 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