1 2025:CGHC:57313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 845 of 2022 Smt. Mona @ Monisa W/o Anil Sahu Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Village Rudri, Post And Police Station Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Anil Das S/o Hetram Das Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Magarghatna, Post Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 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 15.06.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case 2 No.221/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhamtari, seeking maintenance from the respondent. The marriage between the parties took place on 27- 05-2018 at Raipur. After marriage, the applicant alleges that the respondent, who lives in a joint family, is a habitual alcoholic and frequently assaulted her over trivial issues and for dowry demands. She claims that he regularly returned home drunk, beat her with hands and fists, dragged her by hair, insulted her appearance, and repeatedly threatened to kill her. A social meeting was held where he apologized, but the violence continued. She also approached the Women’s Cell for counseling, after which the respondent allegedly beat her again and expelled her from the matrimonial home, threatening to kill her if she returned. Since then, she has been living with her parents at Rudri. She further states that the respondent owns a pucca house, has ancestral agricultural land, and earns about Rs. 35,000/- per month from vegetable business. Based on this, she sought Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed he has no income. After considering the evidence, the Family Court rejected the applicant’s maintenance claim by order dated 15-06-2022, leading to the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15-06-2022 (Annexure A-1) is perverse and has been passed without proper judicial consideration, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The applicant submits that during her stay at the matrimonial home, she was also harassed by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and was not provided adequate food or care. She further submits that the respondent abandoned the applicant at her parental home, compelling her to reside with her aged parents who themselves are suffering from various age- related ailments. The applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, making her fully dependent on her parents. She also submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is living a comfortable lifestyle and has sufficient means. Being the legally wedded husband, it is his statutory duty to provide maintenance to his wife. Hence, the applicant is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that the applicant-wife failed to prove any justifiable or reasonable cause for living separately from the respondent. The Court found significant inconsistencies 4 between her pleadings and testimony, lack of supporting evidence regarding allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, assault, or harassment, and noted that even social and counseling proceedings reflected no fault on the part of the husband. It was also noted that the applicant was unwilling to resume cohabitation despite an order of restitution of conjugal rights. In these circumstances, the Court held that she was residing separately without sufficient cause and therefore not entitled to claim maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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