1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1305 of 2025 Smt. Kanti Kumari Patel W/o Brajesh Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chharpara, P.S. And Tehsil Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Brajesh Patel @ Monu Aged About 28 Years R/o Kanshinagar, Behind Ravi Dairy, P.S. Rampur, Tehsil Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. For respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /10/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Circuit Family Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MCRCA No.47/2023, 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 and the respondent got married as per rituals on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 18.04.2018 at Village Chaarpara, Police Station and Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. On 22.05.2019, the respondent verbally and physically abused the applicant, demanding that she bring 1.2 lakh from her parents and warning ₹ her that once her brothers got married, her parents would become financially ruined. The applicant informed her parents of the incident and, on 23.05.2019, returned with them to her parental home in Chaarpara. A social meeting was convened by her family on 02.06.2019, after which, eleven days later, the respondent along with his maternal uncle took her to Korba. There, in an intoxicated condition, the respondent again assaulted the applicant, causing injuries. On 10.07.2019, she lodged a complaint at the Women’s Help and Family Counselling Centre, Rampur, and returned to her parental home the following day. The applicant received medical treatment at the Primary Health Centre, Sakti, on 25.05.2019 and again on 12.07.2019. Subsequently, she lodged an FIR bearing No. 375/2020 dated 24.10.2020 at Police Station Sakti, upon which criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the case is presently pending before the Court at Sakti. For the past six years, the applicant has been residing with her parents. On 13.07.2022, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating that her husband, who earns Rs.25,000/- per month as an accountant at Kusmunda Mines, is addicted to alcohol and 3 habitually assaulted her, compelling her to live separately. The respondent filed a reply denying all allegations. Thereafter, the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties rejected the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is bad in the eyes of law and against the principles of natural justice, causing irreparable loss to the applicant. The Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist was compelled to sign the deed of separation under pressure and that she has been living separately due to the respondent’s habitual drinking and physical abuse. Despite mediation efforts, when she returned to live with him, the respondent again assaulted her under the influence of alcohol. The Court further overlooked the fact that the applicant had repeatedly lodged complaints against the respondent for cruelty, and criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are pending before the Sakti Court. 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) had no 4 sufficient reason to live separately from her husband. The Court held that both parties had executed a mutual separation deed on 11.07.2019, and the wife had voluntarily taken back her belongings. It further noted that the husband had been acquitted of charges under Section 498-A IPC, and therefore, the wife was not found entitled to claim monthly 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal