1 2025:CGHC:54589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1187 of 2025 Savita Sonwani W/o Ajay Sonwani, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Nathunvagaon Out Post Tumdibod, Dongergaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ajay Sonwani S/o Dhanesh Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sevati, Police Station Litiya Sevariya District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Chandra Kumari Navrang, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. Chandra Kumari Navrang, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. I.A. No. 01/2025, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 14 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the criminal revision is finally heard. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.10 17:31:55 +0530 2 in Misc. Criminal Case No. - 247/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking grant of maintenance against the non-applicant/husband. It was pleaded, inter-alia, in the application that in the year 2020, both the parties came to know each other, and the non-applicant brought the applicant to his house and solemnized marriage with her through Sindoor and Utra, and also by tying a Mangalsutra on 15-02-2022. Thereafter, both of them resided together in the house of the non-applicant/husband. However, after some time, disputes arose between them. It was further alleged by the wife that the husband is a habitual drunkard and, after consuming liquor, he used to assault her regularly. Finally, on 18-07-2022, the husband drove her out of his house. It was further stated in the application that the husband is well-to-do; he is working as a driver and earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month, and he also owns agricultural land from which he earns approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- annually. Hence, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The husband filed his written statement and contended that the applicant is not his legally wedded wife, as no valid marriage ever took place between them. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 22-05-2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby the maintenance application filed by the wife was 3 rejected on the ground that she is residing separately without sufficient cause. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order dated 22-05-2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, passed without proper application of mind, and contrary to the object and spirit of Section 125 of the CrPC. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that no effort was made by the husband to bring back the wife, nor was any evidence produced by him to prove the same. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, and it is the husband’s statutory duty to maintain her. The impugned order is therefore illegal, as the wife has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that due to the ill- treatment and cruelty inflicted by the husband, the wife was compelled to live separately. Being a housewife with no means to sustain herself, and in absence of any financial support from the husband, she is dependent upon her parents. The non-applicant, being the husband, is legally bound to maintain her. The learned Family Court erred in holding that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, whereas the evidence on record clearly shows that she was forced to leave due to cruelty and harassment. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife is ready and willing to reside with her husband, but it is the husband who has refused to keep her. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the wife did not lodge any police complaint against the husband, which shows her bona-fide intention to maintain the marital 4 relationship. The Court has not assigned proper reasons while rejecting the application under Section 125 of the CrPC, and hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court further erred in not granting maintenance despite the applicant having proved her case. The applicant is entitled to the maintenance amount claimed in her application. 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