1 2025:CGHC:51888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1275 of 2025 Salma Khatoon W/o Mohd. Aslam Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o C/o Faruq Aalam, Near Syed Baba Majar, Nizami Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and District – Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Mohd. Aslam S/o Mohd. Afzal, Aged About 40 Years, Occupation - Crane Operator, R/o Road No. 6, Zone-3, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.363/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that he applicant filed an application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.17 16:19:00 +0530 2 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance, stating that her Niqah was solemnized with the non-applicant on 01.11.2012 as per Muslim rites and rituals. After the Niqah, the applicant began residing in the matrimonial home and performed her matrimonial obligations. However, she was subjected to harassment by the non- applicant and his family members due to demands for dowry. Subsequently, the applicant became pregnant. The non-applicant took her for a medical check-up to determine the gender of the fetus. Upon learning that the fetus was female, the non-applicant and his family members forced the applicant to undergo an abortion. The applicant refused, upon which the non-applicant and his family members physically assaulted her and forcibly evicted her from the matrimonial home. Due to the assault, the applicant experienced severe abdominal pain and required medical treatment. During the course of treatment, the attending doctor was compelled to perform an abortion as the pregnancy had become life-threatening for the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Durg, as well as at the Mahila Thana, Durg on 30.07.2013. As a result, the non-applicant and his family members were arrested. The applicant further stated that she had earlier filed a maintenance application, in which the learned Family Court granted her interim maintenance. Subsequently, the matter was compromised between the parties, and the said application was disposed of on the basis of the compromise. Following the compromise, the applicant returned to the non-applicant's home. 3 However, after some time, the non-applicant resumed assaulting her. The applicant again lodged a report at Police Station Khursipar, but that case too was compromised. Once again, the applicant returned to the non-applicant, who kept her in a rented house for approximately 1½ years. However, in 2019, just before the Eid festival, the non-applicant dropped the applicant at her parental home and has since not made any effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home. 3. The applicant specifically submitted that the non-applicant is employed as a Crane Operator in Central Oriya Associates Pvt. Ltd., earning approximately Rs.40,000 per month. On the other hand, the applicant is a housewife with no independent source of income. Therefore, she filed the present application seeking maintenance. After due service of notice, the non-applicant filed a reply denying the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide its impugned order dated 07.08.2025, dismissed the maintenance application on the ground that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause, whereas the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and 4 assault by the non-applicant and his family members. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant has sufficient source of income, yet he has not paid a single penny towards the maintenance of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is a housewife with no independent source of income and is, therefore, legally entitled to receive maintenance from the non-applicant to sustain herself in society. The learned Family Court has ignored the fact that the applicant requires proper food, clothing, personal care items, and medical expenses, which she cannot afford without maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is entitled to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to properly evaluate the documents and evidence produced before it, and the findings recorded are perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant has been living separately from the non-applicant since the year 2019. However, even after that, the non-applicant took the applicant back with him more than once for a period of 1–2 months. The applicant has not clearly explained why and when she returned to her parental home after the non-applicant took her back multiple times following her initial return to her parental home in 2019. 5 Therefore, it becomes evident that the applicant is residing separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufficient cause. Hence, the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti