1 2025:CGHC:43368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 28 of 2024 1. Sarita Bai W/o Dinesh Aged About 39 Years Caste Rajput, Presently Residing At Bitthaldah, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Priya D/o Dinesh Aged About 13 Years Minor Hence They Are Represented By Their Mother, The Natural Gurdian A-1, Caste Rajput, Presently Residing At Bitthaldah, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 3. Prema D/o Dinesh Aged About 11 Years Minor Hence They Are Represented By Their Mother, The Natural Gurdian A-1, Caste Rajput, Presently Residing At Bitthaldah, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) 4. Prince S/o Diensh Aged About 9 Years Minor Hence They Are Represented By Their Mother, The Natural Gurdian A-1, Caste Rajput, Presently Residing At Bitthaldah, P.S. And Tehsil Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ...Applicants versus Dinesh Ramkrishna Rathore Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lapti, P.S. Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.29 10:34:55 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.10.23 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.318/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the present applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, with whom she was married twenty- one years ago as per Hindu customs and traditions. Out of the wedlock, five children were born. However, the present application has been filed in respect of the three youngest children, as the other two have already been married and the expenses for their marriage were borne by the father of Applicant No. 1. Soon after the marriage, the respondent’s behavior towards the applicant changed. She observed that the respondent began demanding dowry from her father. The respondent physically assaulted her and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home while she was pregnant. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. On one occasion, the respondent attempted to kill the applicant by pouring kerosene over her. Since that incident, the respondent has not allowed the applicant to reside with him. The respondent is a 3 habitual alcoholic, and under the influence of alcohol, he has attempted to assault the children. As the respondent refused to maintain the applicant and applicant No. 1 was compelled to file an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 3,000/- per month for each of the other applicants. In total, the applicant sought Rs. 14,000 per month from the respondent. The above allegations and facts were refuted by the respondent, except for some. He specifically denied having any source of income or ownership of agricultural land. 3. In the given circumstances, as the respondent's income and property ownership were denied, the learned trial Court dismissed the claim related to his property and income from other sources. However, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the maintenance application filed by the applicant, which is well-founded both in law and on facts. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that dismissing the entire application is erroneous both in fact and in law and warrants reconsideration by this Court. The learned trial Court wrongly concluded that the applicant voluntarily left her matrimonial home without just cause. It failed to appreciate that the respondent’s conduct left the applicant with no option but to leave the matrimonial home. The applicant has established that the respondent earns approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- from agricultural activities and masonry work a fact admitted by the respondent himself. There is a catena of judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court 4 holding that a husband is legally bound to maintain his wife, irrespective of the reasons for her departure from the matrimonial home. At the very least, the trial Court ought to have granted maintenance for the children. Dismissing their claim reflects a misappropriation of facts and law, which needs to be corrected. The applicant examined her father as a witness, but the trial Court failed to consider his unchallenged deposition, despite there being no rebuttal from the respondent. The allegation that the respondent attempted to kill the applicant by pouring kerosene on her was disregarded by the trial Court, despite its significance as a justification for her leaving the matrimonial home. The learned trial Court failed to recognize that cohabiting with the respondent posed a threat to the applicant’s life. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti