1 2025:CGHC:52464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1286 of 2025 Smt. Gayatri Devangan W/o Rupendra Dewangan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bilaigarh Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. Current Address Sukul Para Kharoud, Police Station Shivrinarayan Tahsil- Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Applicant versus Rupendra Devangan S/o Sunhar Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 270/2024, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the applicant has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.29 14:53:11 +0530 2 married to the respondent on 22.04.2023 according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the respondent and his family members started harassing the applicant for dowry. Consequently, the applicant filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the respondent. The applicant lived peacefully with the respondent for a few days at her matrimonial home in Bilaigarh. Thereafter, the respondent along with his brothers, Girdhari, Bhagwan, and Sanat, sisters-in-law, Garima, Urmila, and Sangita, and brother-in-law’s son, Rahul started taunting the applicant that the dowry items given in her marriage were ordinary, cheap, and not from branded companies. They further stated that since her father is a government teacher, he should have given more valuable items such as a car and gold and silver ornaments. They demanded that she bring these from her parental home and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to do so. Thus, the respondent and his family members continuously harassed the applicant physically and mentally, using obscene language and abusive behavior. That the respondent is employed as a teacher at the Government Primary School, Khondhla, Udaipur District, Sarguja (C.G.). He took the applicant to Udaipur, where he continued to harass her physically and mentally over dowry demands. Under the influence of alcohol, he used to beat her daily and even attempted to kill her several times by pressing her throat and face with a blanket. On 09.04.2024, at about 9:00 a.m., the respondent threw the applicant out of the house, locked the door, and abandoned her. She waited all night for him to return, but he did 3 not come. The landlord, Smt. Sanjana Singh, sheltered the applicant and tried to contact the respondent over the phone. However, he replied that if the applicant wanted to die, she could die. The respondent returned home the next day. On 24.04.2024, the respondent deceitfully left the applicant at Bilaspur Bus Stand and went back to Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.). The applicant then went to her in-laws’ house at Bilaigarh, where her brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and their son again abused, assaulted, and harassed her, insisting that she should return to her parental home and purchase a house. The cause of action arose when the respondent left the applicant at her parental village, Kharoud, on 10.06.2024. 3. Despite repeated opportunities, there was no improvement in the behavior of the respondent. The harassment continued, and the applicant submitted a written complaint on 02.11.2024 at Police Station Shivrinarayan against the respondent and his family members for dowry harassment and assault. She was called for counseling at the Women’s Counseling Centre, Janjgir, on 20.11.2024, but the respondent did not appear. 7. on 10.06.2024, before the reopening of schools, the respondent brought the applicant from Bilaigarh to her parental home at Kharoud along with his friend, Yashwant Tandon, in a white car (Registration No. CG-04-MO-4140). He told her that they were going to Bilaspur for some important work and would take her back to Bilaigarh upon return. However, they never came back. Despite several attempts by the applicant’s parents to contact him over the phone, there has been no communication. The applicant is completely distressed due 4 to continuous harassment, making her life unbearable. She initially refrained from reporting the incidents, hoping that her husband’s behavior would improve, but as there was no change, she is now filing this report seeking appropriate legal action. The applicant is a housewife and has no independent source of income. The respondent, being a government teacher at the Government Primary School, Khondhla, Udaipur District, Sarguja (C.G.), earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs.55,000. He also owns around 3 acres of agricultural land in Bilaigarh village, from which he earns about 80 sacks of paddy annually, worth approximately Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the respondent is a person of means. The applicant, having no source of livelihood and being dependent, has filed an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Learned Family Court, seeking maintenance, along with an interim application for maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the Family Court and records of the Family Court. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the 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. 5 6. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 7. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti