1 2025:CGHC:41498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1399 of 2024 Pooja Tiwari W/o Manoj Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Aasma City, Phase Ii, Qr.No. Al/179, Sakri, Police Station Sakri, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Manoj Sharma S/o Dashrath Prasad Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Tulsi Awas, Qr. No.3/70, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the order dated 26.10.24 passed by learned 1st Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur-(C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 985/2022 Pooja Tiwari Vs Manoj Sharma. in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter they lived together for about three years. It was alleged that the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to continuous physical and mental cruelty and made unlawful demands for money, due to which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in March 2021 and reside with her parents. The Family Court, after issuing notice, recorded the pleadings and evidence of both parties and their witnesses, but by order dated 26.10.2024 dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate that the respondent had continuously subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents, which fact was duly supported by her pleadings and evidence. It is urged that despite enduring harassment at the hands of the respondent and his family members, the applicant continued to live with him until the circumstances became unbearable, whereafter she was constrained to lodge an FIR for her safety. It is further contended that the respondent has mala fidely filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act only to take advantage in the criminal proceedings, 3 being well aware that the applicant would not return to cohabitation. It is also submitted that the applicant has no independent source of income for her sustenance, whereas the respondent, belonging to a well-reputed family, is financially sound, working as a contractor with other sources of income, but the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and financial position of the parties, illegally dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, by its order dated 26.10.2024, rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., having found that the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately and seeking maintenance. The Court properly appreciated that the allegations of cruelty and unlawful demands were not proved by cogent and reliable evidence, and that the applicant, despite opportunity, could not substantiate her claims. Accordingly, the learned Family Court, after framing issues and evaluating the testimonies of the applicant, the respondent, and their witnesses, came to a well-reasoned conclusion that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 4 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan