1 2025:CGHC:51669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1262 of 2025 Smt. Sunita Choudhary W/o Kamal Choudhary Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Belmundi, Post Baloda Present Village Sirpur, Post Baloda Police Station and Tehsil Saraypali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kamal Choudhary S/o Padmashankar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Belmundi, Police Station and Tehsil Saraypali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of dealy of 60 days in filing the instant revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 02/2025 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the criminal revision is finally heard. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.16 18:37:02 +0530 2 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. - 79/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 03.06.2020 as per their social norms and traditions. The applicant and non- applicant lived together happily for about 15 days, but thereafter, the non-applicant started abusing the applicant and demanded dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also started physically assaulting her and eventually threw the applicant out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the applicant made several attempts to resume cohabitation, but the non-applicant clearly refused. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 22.07.2023, seeking maintenance and praying for interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. 5. The non-applicant filed a reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., denying all the allegations made by the applicant. The applicant subsequently filed an application for interim maintenance. However, the learned Family Court, without properly considering the circumstances faced by the applicant, rejected the application. Thereafter, evidence was recorded by the learned Court below. Both the applicant and the non-applicant were permitted to adduce evidence from their respective sides. The learned Family Court failed 3 to comply with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Court framed comprehensive guidelines relating to overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, interim maintenance, criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of maintenance orders. It is pertinent to mention that, in furtherance of the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court also issued directions to subordinate courts to strictly comply with the said guidelines. No affidavit of assets and liabilities was filed by either party before the court below. The Family Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter without determining the financial status of the parties, which is against the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law and on facts and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant used abusive language to humiliate the applicant in public and subjected her to cruelty by demanding money, compelling her to reside separately. The applicant has no source of income and is in a critical medical condition, having lost vision in both eyes. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made several efforts to resume cohabitation, which were clearly refused by non-applicant. The applicant is still willing to live with her. No affidavit of assets and liabilities was filed by either party, and the Court adjudicated the matter without determining the financial status of the 4 parties, thereby committing an error. The learned Family Court erred in allowing the application for maintenance despite the applicant having no source of income or means for livelihood. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti