1 2025:CGHC:29585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1187 of 2016 Smt. Anju W/o Dilip Dhiwar, Aged About 20 Years Caste Dhiwar, R/o Village Kalmi, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Banari, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Dilip Dhiwar S/o Gorelal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kalmi, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /07/2025 1. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this criminal revision when the case is called out. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.349/2015, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent and the applicant were married on June 20, 2014, according to Hindu customs and rituals. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) claiming maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from the respondent. The applicant alleged that after about six to seven months of marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected her to cruelty, stating that the respondent had remarried another woman. She further claimed that the respondent and his family snatched her ornaments, physically abused her, and forced her to undergo an abortion. The applicant also stated that the respondent works at Monet Power Plant in Raigarh, earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month, and owns 7-8 acres of agricultural land, while she has no source of income to support herself. The respondent denied the allegations and requested the dismissal of the application. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, rejected the applicant’s maintenance application on December 3, 2016, Hence, the criminal revision. 4. I have 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 the applicant, Anju had 3 requested a monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- from the respondent through her application. However, the applicant failed to prove that she is living separately from the respondent for sufficient reasons through her evidence, hence, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil