1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1308 of 2025 Smt. Tileshwari Salame S/o Manik Salame Aged About 21 Years R/o Hal Daniya, Thana Gandai, Tahsil Chhuikhandan District- Rajnandgoan, Now Khairagarh - Chhuikhandan - Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Manik Salame S/o Arjun Salame Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tekapar, Thana Gantapar Jangal, Tahsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgoan, Now Khairagarh - Chhuikhandan - Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, 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 09.09.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Circuit Bench Khairagarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.86/2021, 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 are husband and wife, their marriage 2 having been solemnized in May 2019 according to the customs prevailing in their community. It is alleged that due to the continuous harassment by the respondent, the applicant started living separately, and as the respondent neglected to maintain her or provide any financial support, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2021, claiming maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month. The applicant has further stated that the respondent is a landlord and agriculturist earning about Rs.40,000/- per month and possesses agricultural land and a house from which he earns Rs.3–4 lakhs annually, yet he failed to provide any maintenance, forcing her to live in hardship. Upon notice, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and filed a written statement denying all allegations and disputing her entitlement to maintenance. Both parties adduced evidence, and after appreciating the same, the learned Family Court dismissed the applicant’s petition, hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Khairagarh is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in holding that the applicant had no sufficient reason to live separately, despite clear evidence of harassment and ill-treatment by the respondent. The Court further failed to properly appreciate the applicant’s pleadings and evidence, resulting in an erroneous finding that she is not entitled to maintenance. 3 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 failed to prove that she was residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and reasonable cause. The Court further held that the allegations of cruelty and harassment made by the applicant were not substantiated by any reliable evidence. It was also found that the alleged incidents of demand of dowry and physical cruelty were neither reported to the police nor supported by any medical proof. Relying on these findings, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil