1 2025:CGHC:36509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1400 of 2024 Smt. Rukmani Sahu W/o Shri Jyoti Prakash Sahu Aged About 26 Years D/o Shri Tilochan Sahu, R/o Village Sedam, Police Station And Tahsil Batauli, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jyoti Prakash Sahu S/o Shri Balsai Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Manja, Police Station And Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 31/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that both the parties are governed by the General Principle of Hindu Law and marriage between applicant and respondent was solemnized on 10.06.2017 as per the Hindu rites and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 their custom and presently they are living separately at the addresses mentioned above. According to the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant (Wife), in which she contended that the Husband and his family members had harassed her with mental agony. Moreover, when she asked for tuition fee for B.Ed. (Rs. 16,000/-) then the husband and his family member had refused to give the same and committed cruel treatment with her. Somehow she tried to safeguard herself on that day. Thereafter, the uncle of the applicant visited the house of the respondent to take her back but the attempt of her uncle and other family members gone empty. Thereafter the applicant left the matrimonial house in December 2020. Thereafter in January 2021, the applicant filed an application for compromise before the Women and Child Development Officer, Ambikapur and on 12.02.2021 the respondent (Husband) was called and after compromise the applicant went along with her husband to matrimonial home on 16.02.2021. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2021, the applicant got pregnant for that the applicant along with respondent went to hospital for check-up/treatment. When the respondent came to know that the applicant is carrying pregnancy of two months then he committed marpit, resultantly, it was miscarried. Thereafter the brother of the applicant took her to parental house on 28.05.2021, since then she is living with her parents. In parental home, applicant is not having any source of income for her livelihood. For that, she had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. contending therein that the husband is engaged in the agriculture work of 25 acres land, apart from this, three houses of double stories are running on rent. Therefore the applicant had filed an application under Section U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from husband. 3 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the respondent had solemnized marriage with another lady namely Maiti @ Anjali Sahu, which are evident from the medical report issued by the Civil Surgeon, District Hospital Surajpur (C.G.), and from the perusal of the medical report, it has been disclosed that out of their wedlock one new baby boy was born. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and 4 is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar