1 2025:CGHC:58424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 955 of 2022 Sonkunwar W/o Bhajan Singh Aged About 38 Years Caste-Gond, R/o Village-Urumduda (Dhodhi Bandh), Post-Mahora, Police Station-Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District-Korea Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village- Belard, Police Station And Tahsil-Sonhat, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Bhajan Singh S/o Bahal Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste-Gond, R/o Village-Urumduga (Dhodhi Bandh), Post-Mahora, Police Station-Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. K.K. Prajapati holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned Judge, the Family Court, 2 Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.31/2020, 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, Baikunthpur, stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized in the year 1990 and four children were born from the wedlock, of whom two daughters are now married. It was alleged that the respondent habitually consumed liquor, assaulted the applicant, and despite interventions by society and social meetings held on 20.06.2019 and 30.06.2019, he continued to commit marpit with her. In the year 2020, the respondent again assaulted and ousted her from the matrimonial home, compelling her to lodge a complaint on 08.10.2020, on which no action was taken. She has been residing in her parental home without any source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a mason and owns agricultural land but has failed to provide any maintenance. Thereafter, the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 is bad in law, arbitrary and perverse, as the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The finding that the applicant is living separately without reasonable cause is contrary to the material 3 available and therefore unsustainable. He further submits that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has no independent source of income and was subjected to cruelty and assault in the matrimonial home, ultimately being ousted by the respondent. Despite social interventions and complaints made by the applicant, the respondent neither improved his conduct nor made any effort to bring her back. He also submits that the respondent is financially capable, being a mason and owner of agricultural land, yet he has failed to provide any maintenance. The learned Family Court overlooked these facts and did not examine the documents and evidence in their proper perspective. The applicant is living separately for just and reasonable cause and is entitled to maintenance under the law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 the that the applicant failed to prove that she was living separately from the respondent for any 4 just or reasonable cause. On the contrary, the material on record showed that her own conduct such as frequently leaving the house without information, not performing domestic responsibilities, and causing social disputes was the reason for the marital discord. Since the applicant was unable to establish sufficient grounds for living separately, she was held disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in view of Section 125(4). Accordingly, the application for maintenance was rejected. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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