1 2025:CGHC:27213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 362 of 2017 Smt. Karuna Kaur W/o Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o Baikunth Dham, Bihind S.T.F.. School Camp- 2, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Amarjeet Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o New Khursipar, Near Gurudwara Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No.92/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court alleging therein that the marriage between the respondent / husband and the applicant / wife was solemnized on 20.05.2013 as per Hindu Custom. Unfortunately, soon after their marriage, the applicant was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical abuse by the respondent on account of demand of dowry . The cruelty continued for near about a year, and through all that period the applicant remained calm and silent to better their furture, but respondent finally had ousted her and managed to get shelter in her relative's house. Thereafter, the respondent preferred divorce application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant/wife has also filed complaint under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. of which matter was pending before Judicial Magistrate Durg, District – Durg. Being aggrieved by the same the applicant also has preferred application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with grant of interim maintenance for which the respondent has filed its reply to the interim maintenance application. On 22.02.2017, after considering facts and circumstance of the case, learned Family Court, has passed the impugned order and rejected the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant. Hence, the criminal revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance applicant filed by the applicant as the applicant had failed to prove cruelty and desertion (wife without any reason lift the matrimonial house of husband)/neglect on the part of the husband, further according to Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. who is entitled to claim maintenance, the wife ‘who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to claim maintenance.’ this extended definition of ‘wife’ is intended to prevent the unscrupulous husband frustrating the legitimate maintenance claims of their wives and is aimed at securing social justice to women belonging to the poorer classes. He further submits that the respondent is hale and healthy and is adequately educated and earing handsome amount i.e. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) as posted in military and working there as automobile mechanical work and it has been overlooked in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that she is unable to maintain herself, for which she is suffering for life. He also submits that the respondent demanded dowry, thrown her out of house and subjected her to cruelty for which case under Section 498-A of IPC is pending, without considering the said facts, learned Family Court passed the order and rejected the applicant of the applicant, which is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing the undisputed fact the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. According to both parties, they lived together as husband and wife for only 20 days after marriage, after which the respondent left for his workplace due to his job in the Army. The applicant alleged that during the short period of cohabitation, the respondent harassed her for dowry. However, it is unusual that she did not report this immediately or soon after the respondent left for his workplace. Instead, she stayed with the respondent's parents for 6-7 months without any issues. If the respondent had indeed harassed the applicant for dowry during their short marriage, it is unlikely that she would have stayed with his parents for an extended period without complaint. This suggests that the allegations of dowry harassment may not be true. Further, the applicant admitted that a domestic violence case she filed was dismissed. The respondent claimed that they were acquitted in a dowry case, but the applicant did not corroborate this in her evidence, hence, the applicant failed to provide independent witness testimony to 5 support her claims. Without corroborating evidence, her testimony is not credible. Given the lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the applicant's statements, it was not proven that the applicant is living separately from the respondent for justifiable reasons. Therefore, the Family Court came to the conclusion that applicant is not entitled to maintenance from the respondent. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal