1 2025:CGHC:46925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1125 of 2025 Smt. Neeta Sahu W/o Puspanjay Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Sonasilli, Police Station Tendukona, Tahsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of C/o. Shri Hemkumar Sahu, Resident Of Village And Post Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Puspanjay Sahu Son Of Shri Tejram Sahu, R/o Village And Post Sonasilli, Police Station Tendukona, Tahsil Pithora, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.66/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant states that after her marriage she lived happily in her matrimonial home for about two months, but thereafter the respondent began to quarrel with her and assaulted her over trivial matters, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry and demanding cash and additional dowry from her parents. When the applicant informed her parents of these incidents, her father, along with her brother-in-law and maternal uncle, paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and his parents, yet the harassment continued. Later, the respondent telephoned the applicant’s parents, asking them to take her back, and on 28.10.2023 they brought her to her parental home in Village Tumgaon. Since that time the respondent has provided no financial support. The applicant’s father is an ordinary farmer and unable to maintain her. She further states that the respondent is a healthy, able-bodied man employed as a financier with Cholamandalam Finance Company at Pithora, earning about Rs.30,000 per month, and she therefore seeks an order directing him to pay her Rs.15,000 per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the 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 dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the object of Section 125 CrPC. 3 The Court failed to note that the husband made no effort to bring the wife back and led no evidence in that regard, though he has admitted that she is his legally wedded wife and is bound to maintain her. The wife, having no independent source of income, was compelled to reside with her parents due to continuous ill- treatment and cruelty from the husband and his family, and she has received no financial support from him. She never left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and remains ready and willing to live with her husband, which is evident from the fact that she lodged no police complaint. Despite these circumstances, the Family Court rejected her application under Section 125 CrPC without assigning proper reasons, and the order therefore deserves 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 rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that the wife failed to prove any reasonable or sufficient cause for living separately from her husband. It noted that she had not lodged any complaint of cruelty or dowry harassment with the police or any authority, had produced no independent supporting evidence, and had repeatedly refused the husband’s offers both personally and in community meetings to resume cohabitation. Considering the fact 4 that she was living apart without justifiable reason, the Family Court concluded that she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC and accordingly dismissed her application. 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