1 2025:CGHC:42717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1045 of 2025 Smt. Uttra Devi Kurre W/o Bhagwati Prasad Kurre, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Dhabadih, Post Bagbuda, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara (C.G.) Applicant versus 1. Bhagwati Prasad Kurre S/o Ganesh Prasad Kurre, Present Address- Village Khudiyadih, Post- Badsara, Police Station Bilha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Minor Vanshika Kurre, D/o Bhagwati Prasad Kurre, Aged About 4 Years Minor Hence Impleaded Through Her Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Uttra Devi Kurre, R/o Village Dhabadih, Post Bagbuda, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Minor Geetika Kurre, D/o Bhagwati Prasad Kurre, Aged About 1 Years Minor Hence Impleaded Through Her Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Uttra Devi Kurre, R/o Village Dhabadih, Post Bagbuda, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.22 18:07:11 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and issue direction to grant suitable interim maintenance amount in favour of the applicant looking to the facts and circumstances of the case setting aside the 昀椀ndings of issue No. 1 vide impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 353/2024 by the learned Judge Family Court at Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar – Bhatapra (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the the present applicant, along with her minor daughters, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, has 昀椀led an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking maintenance from respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, as the applicants before the learned Family Court are unable to maintain themselves, whereas respondent No. 1 is a person having su昀케cient means but is deliberately avoiding their maintenance. The applicant was married to respondent No. 1 on 19.05.2020 at Village Dhabadih (Lawan), and from the said wedlock, they have been blessed with two girl children. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the family members of respondent No. 1 and was also abused in 昀椀lthy language by her father-in-law, respondent No. 1, and other family members. It was further averred that she was not safe in her matrimonial home, and upon the birth of her second daughter, she was ousted from the matrimonial house and sent to her parental home on 24.10.2023, where she is residing since 3 then. 4. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance, denied the allegations made in the application, and contended that the applicant is an earning woman capable of earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from stitching work. It was further contended that respondent No. 1 is a registered advocate and that the applicant is residing in her parental house without any su昀케cient reason, and hence, is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court framed as many as four issues, including the issue of whether the applicant is residing separately without any su昀케cient reason, which was decided against her, dis-entitling her from receiving maintenance from respondent No. 1. 6. Learned Family Court decided issue no. 1 as not proved on the ground that although the applicant had made allegations of cruelty, no police complaint was ever lodged by her, and respondent No. 1 had already 昀椀led an application for restitution of conjugal rights, in which the applicant refused to reside with him and his family members. The allegation against the father-in-law was also held to be not proved. On the basis of the 昀椀ndings recorded in respect of issue no. 1, the learned Family Court has denied any maintenance to the applicant herein. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed in M.J.C. No. 353/2024 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.), is bad in law, arbitrary, and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also submits that learned 4 Family Court has exceeded its lawful jurisdiction while deciding issue no. 1, and the reasons and grounds of consideration assigned therein are beyond the scope of legal provisions. He further submits that the grant of maintenance can be denied only if the wife is living separately without su昀케cient reason or refuses to live with her husband. However, non-registration of a police complaint cannot be a ground to hold that, in the absence of such complaint, cruelty is not proved. Consequently, deciding issue no. 1 against the applicant on such reasoning is perverse, and the 昀椀ndings dis-entitling the applicant from grant of maintenance are unsustainable in law. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider the legislative intent, which is bene昀椀cial in nature, and the bene昀椀ts ought to have been extended to the bene昀椀ciary, i.e., the applicant herein. The applicant herein is legally entitled to an appropriate amount of maintenance from respondent No. 1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the documents and evidence adduced by both parties, partially dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the applicant, holding that although allegations of cruelty were made, no police complaint was ever lodged by her. It was further observed that respondent No. 1 had already 昀椀led an application for restitution of conjugal rights, in which the applicant refused to reside with him and his family members, and that the allegation against the father-in-law was also not proved. 5 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice Abhishek