1 2025:CGHC:57308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 984 of 2022 Nikki W/o Tapesh Ajgalley Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Bhinoda, P.S. - Sarsiva Tah.- Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus Tapesh Ajgalley S/o Bharat Ajgalley Aged About 26 Years Assistant Teacher, R/o Village Bhinoda, P.S. Sarsiva, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, holding the brief of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, holding the brief of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhade, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.148/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, married him on 24.08.2019 as per customs. She alleges that after a few days of marriage, the respondent and his family members began to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry, often taunting and beating her. After being expelled from the matrimonial home, a compromise took place and she returned, but within a few days she was again beaten and driven out on 18.12.2020. Due to continuous harassment, the applicant lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A/34 IPC, for which charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending. She claims she wants to live with the respondent but he refuses to keep her, forcing her to stay with her poor parents. Having no source of income and alleging that the respondent earns around Rs. 2 lakh per year, she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent, in his reply, denied allegations of dowry and cruelty, stating that theirs was a love marriage. He claims the applicant voluntarily leaves the house, does not do household work, frequently quarrels, and refused to return despite his efforts. He contends that since she filed a 498-A case, it is not possible for them to live together. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the maintenance application of the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and is therefore illegal and contrary to law. The Family Court 3 failed to consider that the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. He further submits that the applicant had produced both oral and documentary evidence showing cruelty by the respondent, including the registration of an FIR under Sections 498-A/34 IPC and the filing of a charge sheet, which clearly establishes sufficient grounds for her to live separately. Despite this, the Family Court wrongly held that she is living apart without any valid reason. Furthermore, the respondent himself admitted that village elders had conducted counseling between the parties, which indicates the existence of marital disputes caused by the respondent and his family. Therefore, the finding of the learned Court that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance is perverse and unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, 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 rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that the applicant failed to prove sufficient grounds for living separately from the respondent and also failed to establish any neglect or refusal on his part to maintain her. The Court found that the respondent has adequate means of income, but 4 since the applicant is residing separately without sufficient cause, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil