1 2025:CGHC:45864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1459 of 2019 Smt. Shashi Prabha W/o Arun Prajapati Aged About 30 Years Caste - Kumhar Occupation - Nill R/o Bilaspur Police Station Tahsil - Batouli District - Surgja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Arun Prajapati S/o Late Ramsai Prajapati Aged About 35 Years Caste - Kumhar Occupation - Agriculturist And Electric Mechanic R/o Bilaspur Police Station - Tahsil - Batouli District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and suitably enhance the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance amount in favour of applicant, in the insterest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the non-applicant on 5.5.2003 as per custom and after marriage the applicant was residing with the non-applicant happily but after some time the non-applicant and their family demanded the dowry from applicant and when their demand not fulfilled, the non-applicant and their family members continuously harass to the applicant and committed the cruelty with her then the applicant was made complain before the police station Batouli on 20.6.2012 against the non-applicant thereafter she is residing separately. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the applicant alleging and no any source of income of applicant and she is not able to maintain her livelihood therefore the suitable maintenance amount is liable to be granted in favor of applicant. 4. After notice the non-applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the allegation made against him. 5. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties and recording the evidence produce by the parties whereby dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Hence the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Family Court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence which is available on record, hence liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of maintenance on the ground that the applicant is able to maintain 3 herself without considering the material evidence which is available on record in which the applicant is clearly stated in her evidence that presently she is not working anywhere and no any income of the applicant therefore the order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to evidence Hence it is is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to consider with the fact that the earlier application filed by the applicant under section 125 of Cr.P.C was dismissed by the learned Family Court on the ground that the applicant was working in Jhulaghar in Yeklabya School therefore she is able to her maintain but at the time of filling of subsequent application she is not working anywhere and no any source of income of applicant therefore the dismissal of the subsequent application is contrary to the facts and evidence which is available on record. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be modified/set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, the Family Court has rightly concluded that the applicant failed to prove essential elements necessary to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In the absence of such proof, the 4 applicant cannot be held entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant. The Family Court, by carefully evaluating the pleadings and evidence, has taken a lawful and justified decision by dismissing the maintenance claim. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal