1 2025:CGHC:55326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1380 of 2025 Smt. Manorama Sahu W/o Himanshu Sahu Aged About 30 Years Through Daughter of Shri Fulji Sahu, R/o Ward No. 18 Tarri Road, Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) P.S. Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Himanshu Sahu S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 1267 Ward No. 08, Dewangan Pan Thela, Bijali Nagar School Bhilai-03 (Charouda), P.S. Bhilai-03 (Charouda) District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of respondent when the case is called out of hearing. 2. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 6led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-aside ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.14 11:08:02 +0530 2 impugned order dated 13.08.2025 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month as sought by the applicant in application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant had 6led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month against the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals on 29.06.2018 at Vrip Bhawan, near F.C.I. Godown, Village Gobra Nawagaon, District Raipur (C.G.). The case of the applicant, in brief, is that after the marriage, she was residing peacefully and happily with the respondent at her matrimonial home. However, a few days after the marriage, the respondent started harassing and subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty on account of insu>ciency of dowry. The respondent demanded an additional amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry, although the applicant’s parents had already given Rs. 1,00,001/- at the time of marriage. The respondent, under the in@uence of liquor, used to assault the applicant and expressed his unwillingness to live with her. Subsequently, the respondent forcibly drove the applicant out of her matrimonial home after committing acts of cruelty and harassment. Consequently, the applicant has been residing at her parental home since then. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income for her livelihood. The respondent, on the other hand, is employed as a Software Engineer in A.G. Company, Bangalore, and is presently earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In addition to his employment, the respondent is possessed of agricultural land measuring about 55–60 acres, from which 3 he earns approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- annually. He also receives an income of Rs. 7,50,000/- annually from sharecropping (paddy sharing) and Rs. 3,00,000/- from cultivating paddy twice a year. Furthermore, the respondent has rented out a house and earns Rs. 3,000/- per month therefrom. Hence, the applicant 6led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the respondent. 5. The respondent/non-applicant 6led his reply and denied the averments made by the applicant in her application. 6. The learned Family Court, after recording the pleadings and evidence of both parties, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2025, dismissed the application 6led by the applicant without granting any maintenance, without properly considering the facts and materials available on record. The said order is contrary to law and violative of the principles underlying Section 125 Cr.P.C., thereby causing grave hardship to the applicant. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law. The applicant, therefore, prefers the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), is completely illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant. The respondent is employed as a Software Engineer in A.G. Company, Bangalore, and is presently earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The respondent is also possessed of agricultural land measuring approximately 55–60 acres, from which he earns an annual income of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Apart from this, he earns Rs. 7,50,000/- 4 annually from sharecropping (paddy sharing) and Rs. 3,00,000/- from cultivating paddy twice a year. The respondent also earns Rs. 3,000/- per month as rental income from his house. Despite such substantial income, the learned Family Court completely ignored these facts and erroneously rejected the maintenance application 6led by the applicant, which is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that the learned Family Court overlooked all the grievances of the applicant and wrongly dismissed the application 6led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without granting any maintenance. The said order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), is further liable to be set aside as the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and, as per law, is fully entitled to maintenance. Despite this, the learned Court has illegally rejected her application, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant left her matrimonial home due to the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the respondent. She has suGered both mental and physical torture at the hands of the respondent. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent has su>cient means to provide maintenance to the applicant and is 6nancially capable of maintaining her. Hence, rejection of the maintenance claim is wholly unjusti6ed. He also submits that soon after the marriage, the respondent started quarrelling with the applicant without any reasonable cause and expressed his unwillingness to live with her. His conduct has been cruel and inhuman, due to which the applicant was mentally harassed and compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The applicant has no source of income and is facing extreme 6nancial hardship for her livelihood. As per the provisions of law, she is 5 entitled to maintenance from the respondent, but the learned Family Court dismissed her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without proper consideration, which is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He submits that the applicant is a poor lady, and her mother is suGering from various ailments. The applicant is facing great di>culty in maintaining herself, yet the learned Family Court rejected her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without considering the facts and material available on record, which is against the law and principles of justice. He submits that the respondent never made any eGort to reconcile or resume cohabitation with the applicant. Despite her repeated attempts to live with him peacefully, the respondent continuously subjected her to harassment and cruelty on account of insu>cient dowry and made repeated demands for additional dowry. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 and be pleased to grant a reasonable maintenance amount in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has rejected the application 6led by the applicant under Section 125 of the CrPC, observing that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent without any su>cient cause. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 6nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court 6 has not committed any illegality or in6rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek