1 2025:CGHC:40133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1262 of 2023 Smt. Nandini (Poonam) Sahu W/o Babulal Sahu, D/o Mahohar Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), Present Address - Lawan Road, (Parsabhader) District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Babulal Sahu, S/o Harishchandra Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), Present Address - Sub Health Center Village Karmada, Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 15:25:02 +0530 2 impugned order dated 29/09/2023 passed by the Family Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) and grant the maintenance amount, passed in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 162/2022 and the Revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent were married according to Hindu customs on 17/05/2019 at Village Bhothadih, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. After the solemnization of marriage, both of them resided happily for a period of three months. It is further alleged that soon thereafter, the respondent, along with his father, mother, and other relatives, started harassing, torturing, and beating the applicant. The respondent and his family members stopped talking to the applicant, and the husband of the applicant constantly misbehaved with and tortured her. The applicant was compelled to approach the Sakhi One Stop Center, Mahila and Bal Vikas Vibhag, Collectorate Campus, Baloda Bazar, and submitted an application to save her conjugal life and for counseling before the Women Protection O?cer. The 7rst counseling session was held on 03/06/2020, wherein the family members of the respondent expressed willingness to keep the applicant and sought time to consider the matter. Thereafter, on 22/06/2020, another counseling session was conducted, during which the husband of the applicant clearly stated that he was not ready to keep the applicant and walked out of the counseling center. After the lapse of 4–5 months, the applicant contacted the respondent over the phone, requesting to return to her matrimonial home. However, the respondent refused to take her back. Consequently, the applicant 7led an application before the Women and Child Protection O?cer against the respondent under Section 12 of the 3 Domestic Violence Act and also instituted a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Family Court. Thereafter, on 12/03/2022, the applicant and respondent, with mutual consent, entered into a compromise, as a result of which both cases were disposed of, and the applicant began residing with the respondent at Lawan Road, Baloda Bazar, in a rented house. However, the applicant lived with the respondent for only one week. Thereafter, it came to light that the respondent’s sole intention in the compromise was to take revenge on the applicant and to get all the cases against his family members disposed of. After that, the respondent started physically assaulting the applicant on a daily basis and mentally torturing her, compelling her to commit suicide. He told her that she was mentally ill, administered medication to her without consulting a doctor for about 10 days, and as a result, the applicant suEered physical and mental weakness, rendering her unable to perform her routine work. 4. The applicant was willing to reside in her matrimonial home with her in- laws, but the respondent and his family members were not interested in keeping her. The respondent continued to misbehave with, harass, abuse, and assault the applicant with his hands and 7sts, and his behavior never changed. After some time, the respondent again started harassing the applicant and ultimately expelled her from his house. The applicant has since been living at her parental home and has no source of income. The respondent, on the other hand, is employed as an R.H.O. in the Health Department, earning a salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month, and owns 10 acres of agricultural land in Village Hasuwa, generating an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The applicant prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself before the Hon’ble High Court. 4 5. The respondent 7led a written statement before the learned trial court, denying all allegations made by the applicant. He speci7cally denied harassing her, denied being employed in the Health Department, and stated that his father works as a labourer and engages in agricultural work. 6. Learned Family Court framed issues, recorded evidence, and examined the documents on record, and found that the applicant was living with her parental family and was not entitled to receive any maintenance amount for herself. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law, perverse, and therefore liable to be set-aside. There has been no proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties by the learned Family Court. He submits that learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant is residing with her father willingly, whereas, in fact, the respondent had expelled the applicant from the matrimonial home. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant has no means for her livelihood and is dependent upon her father, whereas the respondent is earning sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month and also has agricultural land measuring 10 acres situated at Village Hasuwa, Bhatapara, yielding an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The applicant has a legal right to receive maintenance from her husband/respondent. He also submits that the respondent/husband is not interested in keeping the applicant as his wife and intends to marry another woman, and therefore the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. The applicant is ready and willing to reside in the house of the respondent/husband, but the respondent is 5 unwilling to keep her. Learned Family Court has not awarded any amount of maintenance in favour of the applicant, and therefore she is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. He submits that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is presently residing in her parental house, and is thus entitled to receive maintenance from her husband/respondent. According to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any person having su?cient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, children, or parents is liable to be directed to provide maintenance. He further submits that the present applicant is residing in her parental house and is working as a private Computer Operator in the District Hospital, Baloda Bazar, on a contract basis, earning Rs. 13,650/- per month. Her contract is extended every six months, and her employment remains purely temporary. On the basis of this meagre and insecure income, the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is illegal and contrary to law, and the same deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 7led by the applicant, observing that the applicant was living with her parental family. The Court also found that the applicant is working as a Data Entry Operator in the Virology Lab at the District Hospital as a 6 temporary employee, earning Rs. 13,650/- per month, which is su?cient for her present livelihood. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek