1 2025:CGHC:40131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1328 of 2023 Jyotsna Sahu W/o Prashant Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kachanda, P.S. And Tehsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Prashant Sahu S/o Chudamani Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kachanda, P.S. Shvarinarayan, Tehsil Navagarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that, on the facts and ground mentioned as above Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 and allow maintenance in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.13 14:07:47 +0530 2 under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Janjgir, stating that her marriage with the non-applicant was solemnized in the year 2018. Immediately after the marriage, the non-applicant and his family members began subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, demanding a car, gold jewelry, and money as dowry. The non-applicant, along with his parents and sisters, regularly abused the applicant. The non-applicant and his mother took away the applicant’s Streedhan which she had received at the time of her marriage. They would turn on the gas cylinder when the applicant entered the kitchen to cook, and they often threatened her with the intention to cause her death in the name of dowry. The applicant was not allowed to step out of the house and was harassed even over matters such as refueling the motorcycle. She was denied medicine when ill and was forced to work as a servant in the house. On 29.08.2018, urine was poured on her, and she was mistreated and accused of being characterless. The applicant was deprived of food for two to three days. Furthermore, when the applicant’s father and brother visited her, the non-applicant locked the door from inside, preventing them from meeting her. A report regarding this unlawful confinement was lodged at the Shivarinarayan Police Station, and upon police intervention, they were rescued and released. The applicant is currently unemployed and has no source of income, whereas the non-applicant is physically fit and financially well-off. The non-applicant’s father is a teacher with a monthly income of ₹60,000. The non-applicant also owns 12 acres of irrigated double-crop agricultural land in Village Kachanda, 3 generating an income of ₹7,20,000 per crop. Additionally, he owns a tent house and rents out utensils and clothes, earning ₹40,000– ₹50,000 from it. Despite his substantial income, he has not provided any financial support to the applicant. As the applicant is living in her parental home without any means of livelihood, she filed an application seeking maintenance. 3. After service of notice, the non-applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. He claimed that the applicant was residing in her parental home without any reasonable cause and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 27.10.2023, rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is living separately without reasonable cause and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a woman with no independent source of income. Being the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, she is entitled to receive maintenance under the law. The applicant was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the non-applicant and his family members during her stay at her matrimonial home. The non-applicant made no genuine effort to bring the applicant back to the matrimonial home, which clearly reflects his ill-intention and neglect towards the applicant. The non- 4 applicant, despite having sufficient income from agricultural land and other sources, has failed to pay even a single penny towards the applicant’s maintenance. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court regarding the applicant’s conduct and circumstances are contrary to the material evidence available on record. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the reason stated by the applicant/wife for living separately from the non- applicant/husband has not been substantiated by her. On the other hand, the applicant does not have any just and sufficient cause to live separately from the non-applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be 5 and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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