1 2025:CGHC:29174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 146 of 2020 Smt. Ganga Kannoje W/o Shri Sanjay Kannoje Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mokhla, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Maternal House, Village Mopar, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Purani Basti, Near Old Bus Stand, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sanjay Kannoje S/o Shiv Kannoje Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mokhla, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Ritika Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 01/01/2020 passed by the Family Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) and grant the maintenance amount, passed in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 56/2019 and the Revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage in May 2016 according to Hindu customs at Village Mopar, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara. After residing together peacefully for about a year, the applicant was allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent, his parents, and relatives. It was further alleged that the respondent developed an illicit relationship and would speak with another woman late at night over the phone. The applicant lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Raipur, regarding the cruelty inflicted upon her, but no action or counseling was initiated. Despite her willingness to continue marital life, the respondent allegedly persisted in abusing and assaulting her and ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home. Since then, the applicant has been living with her parents and has no independent source of income. She claimed that the respondent is employed with Reliance Company, earning ₹30,000–35,000 per month, and also has agricultural income from 3 acres of land. Accordingly, she sought maintenance of ₹10,000 per month. The respondent, in his 3 written statement, denied all allegations and claimed that he is unemployed, and his father is a laborer engaged in farming. The Family Court, after framing issues and appreciating evidence, held that the applicant is residing in her parental home without sufficient cause and therefore not entitled to maintenance. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, the applicant has preferred this petition, seeking its setting aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and facts on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside or altered. The Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by both parties and wrongly held that the applicant is residing at her parental home willingly, whereas she was, in fact, expelled by the respondent. The applicant has no independent means of livelihood and is entirely dependent on her father, while the respondent earns ₹30,000– 35,000 per month and also derives annual agricultural income from 3 acres of land. Despite this, the learned Family Court did not award any maintenance to the applicant. She is legally wedded to the respondent and, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is entitled to maintenance, especially since the respondent is financially capable and has refused to take her back. The respondent’s unwillingness to cohabit was further proven when he failed to comply with this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 25.09.2024 directing him to take the applicant back and attempt to live together. Despite the applicant executing an affidavit on 12.09.2024 expressing her readiness to 4 reside with the respondent, he failed to act in good faith. The respondent’s conduct amounts to cruelty, and the applicant, being jobless and without support, is entitled to maintenance. Hence, the applicant prays for appropriate direction either for restitution of cohabitation as per the earlier court order or for grant of maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly and lawfully passed its judgment after due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances on record. The Court correctly observed that the applicant failed to establish sufficient and justifiable cause for her living separately from the respondent. Merely making allegations without substantive evidence regarding cruelty, harassment, or dowry demands does not entitle the applicant to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., especially when the respondent denied the charges and there was no concrete proof supporting the applicant’s claims. The Court further found that no credible evidence was led to prove the respondent’s alleged income from employment or agriculture. In light of the absence of any convincing material to 5 show that the applicant was forced to leave the matrimonial home or that the respondent refused to maintain her despite having sufficient means, the Family Court rightly concluded that she is not entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan