1 2025:CGHC:52202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1284 of 2025 Smt. Nagina Sihare W/o Shri Heer Singh Siharre Aged About 35 Years C/o Shri Shivprashad Bhandari, Village Pond, P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Heersingh Sihare S/o Shri Shatrughan Sihare R/o Village Mujalgondi, P.S. And Tehsil Gurur, Distt. Balod, Current R/o Village Post Primary School Madhpal Tehsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As Gajdalpur In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balod (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No.63/2024, whereby the learned Family KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant has preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking maintenance from the respondent. It has been stated that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013 at Village Pond, District Balod (C.G.), and out of their wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. The applicant has alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent started subjecting her to continuous physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter, the respondent deserted the applicant and began residing separately at his workplace, where he is employed as an Assistant Teacher at a Government Primary School. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent has failed and neglected to maintain the applicant, who has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon him for her sustenance. 3. The applicant has further stated that for the past years, the respondent has been pressuring her to obtain a divorce against her wishes. In 2022, the respondent falsely claimed to have divorced the applicant through the Akhil Bharatiya Halba/Halbi Adivasi Samaj, whereas the applicant never consented to any such divorce. The said community divorce certificate is, therefore, forged, invalid, and has no legal sanctity. Based on the said forged certificate, the respondent is now attempting to contract a 3 second marriage. The applicant, through her advocate, issued a legal notice on 28.02.2024, calling upon the respondent to resume cohabitation and discharge his marital duties, but there was no change in his conduct. On the other hand, the respondent in his reply denied all the allegations and claimed that the applicant herself left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. The learned Family Court, however, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025, rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance, holding that she was living separately without sufficient cause. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in holding that the applicant’s separation from the respondent was without sufficient cause. The applicant was compelled to reside separately due to continuous mental cruelty, harassment, and neglect by the respondent, which are valid and lawful grounds for living apart. The impugned order reflects a clear disregard of the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh v. Neha, wherein it has been held that the right to maintenance is a measure of social justice and cannot be denied to a legally wedded wife without just cause. The Family Court failed to consider the emotional and financial distress caused to the applicant due to the respondent’s conduct and neglected to appreciate that the respondent, being an Assistant Teacher with stable income, has sufficient means to maintain the applicant. The learned Family Court has also failed to 4 correctly interpret Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in its true letter and spirit, and overlooked that only statutory deductions can be considered while assessing the respondent’s income. The impugned order is, therefore, perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to law, warranting interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient or justifiable cause. The Court has observed that the respondent made several attempts to bring the applicant back to the matrimonial home, but she voluntarily refused to cohabit and continued to live apart. It has been further noted that there was no credible evidence produced by the applicant to substantiate her allegations of cruelty or harassment. The Family Court, therefore, held that the applicant, having voluntarily deserted the respondent, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal