1 2025:CGHC:57337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1287 of 2022 Smt. Sudha Soni W/o Munni Lal Soni @ Manilal Swarnkar Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 22/7, Ward No. 7, Vishrampur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) Present Address- M. I. G. 1-509, Aamdi Nagar Hudko Sector, Bhilai, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Dr. Munni Lal Soni @ Mani Lal Swarnkar S/o Dalgovind Soni Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 378, Ward No. 5, Near Primary School, Godhanpur, Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh O昀케ce- Kendriya Virya Sangrahalaya, Ambikapur, Post- A V F O (Assistant Vetenary Field O昀케cer) Ambikapur, Tahsil And District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “ अतः माननीय न⡍यायालय से न⡍यायह㤿Lत मे ह㤿नवेदन Lै ह㤿P उकᕍत पुनरी्䵌ण याह㤿XPा स㡍वीPार Pर माननीय अह㤿Zनस㡍थ न⡍यायालय ्䵛ारा ह㤿वह㤿वZ दाह㤿]^P प्रPरण PमांP 391 / 2020 मे䜂 पाह㤿रत RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 आदेश ह㤿दनांP 20.10.2022 ( पह㤿रह㤿शष㝍ट अ-1) Pो ह㤿नरस㡍त Pरते Lुए पुनरी्䵌णPतh / आवेह㤿दPा Pो उसPे पह㤿त अनावेदP से माह㤿सP भरण पोषण राह㤿श ह㤿दलवाये जाने संबंZी ” आदेश पाह㤿रत Pरने Pी Pृ पा Pरे䜂। 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant 昀椀led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance, which came to be dismissed by order dated 20.10.2022. The applicant pleaded that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 19.04.1987 as per Hindu rites, after which she lived with him at Village Sitapur, District Surguja, where their daughter Priyanka was born on 08.07.1988. She alleged that from the inception of marriage the respondent demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- and a scooter, subjected her to harassment, physical assault, abuse, and threats of divorce, and ultimately forced her out of the matrimonial home, even coercing her to sign blank papers during pregnancy. The matter was taken before the Swarnkar Samaj, but despite counselling the respondent refused to maintain her. The applicant stated that she has since lived dependently at her parental home, that the respondent never provided maintenance, did not participate even in their daughter’s marriage, and has since contracted a second marriage without dissolving the 昀椀rst. She further averred that she is an ill-educated, ailing housewife with no source of income, while the respondent is employed as Assistant Veterinary O昀케cer at the Central Semen Collection Centre, Ambikapur, earning around Rs.1,25,000/- per month. The 3 respondent, in his reply, denied the marriage as valid, denied paternity, claimed that the applicant had executed a divorce deed on 12.12.1987, and stated that he had remarried in 1989 and has three children to support; he further disclosed his net salary as Rs.73,757/- per month. Upon hearing both parties, the learned trial Court, by order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure A/1), rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence on record. It is urged that the applicant is a poor, ill- educated and medically un昀椀t woman who has no independent means of livelihood, whereas the respondent is serving as an Assistant Veterinary O昀케cer at the Central Semen Collection Centre, Ambikapur, earning about Rs.1,25,000/- per month. Counsel submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had been subjected to cruelty, harassment for dowry, physical assault, abuse, and was even turned out of the matrimonial home during pregnancy, which constituted just and su昀케cient cause for her to live separately. It is further submitted that the Court did not properly evaluate the documentary and oral evidence produced by the applicant, despite earlier granting her interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month by order dated 05.04.2022. The respondent himself admitted the marriage dated 18.04.1987 and admitted acts of cruelty, yet the Court ignored these material facts. Counsel contends that no decree of divorce has ever been passed between 4 the parties, and despite this the respondent contracted a second marriage in 1989, while continuing to evade his statutory obligation to maintain the applicant. The applicant, having lived dependently 昀椀rst on her father, then on her brother, and now residing with her daughter and son-in-law, has no one to support her, and denial of maintenance places her survival in jeopardy. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., along with an application for interim maintenance, alleging marital cruelty, dowry demands, and desertion; however, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances, the learned trial Court found no su昀케cient ground to grant maintenance. The Court noted the applicant’s inconsistent stand regarding the marriage, the disputed paternity of the daughter, and the allegations surrounding a purported divorce deed dated 12.12.1987, as well as the fact that the parties had been living separately for several decades. The learned Court further observed that the applicant had long been 5 residing independently with her parental family and later with her daughter and son-in-law, and that the respondent had since contracted a second marriage in 1989 and was also maintaining his subsequent family. In the absence of credible and reliable evidence establishing neglect or refusal to maintain, or any subsisting marital obligation warranting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court, by a reasoned order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure A/1), rightly rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan