1 2025:CGHC:58948 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 244 of 2022 Smt. Sunita Gupta W/o Ashish Gupta, Aged About 39 Years R/o Hatri Bazar, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicant versus Ashish Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta, Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhota Talab, Gundipura, Chhindwada, Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwada, Tahsil Chhindwada, District Chhindwada (M.P.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 171/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, by passing the impugned order, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that admittedly the parties are related to each other as wife and husband. According to applicant when the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 marriage was settled between the parties nothing was hidden from her side and it was specifically declared that she is 12th passed and has attained age of 37 years. Knowing full well these two aspects the respondent and family members accepted the relationship and they got married and started residing as husband and wife. Right from day one the respondent started harassing the applicant on the ground that her brothers have only given Rs. 4 Lacs in Tilak Ceremony which have been spent in marriage and because he wants to open a computer shop and various articles are to be installed in the shop thus, while returning first from her maternal home she should come with Rs. 5 Lacs from her brothers. On 01.02.2015, when the applicant was to come came to her maternal house her sister in-law asked her to come with Rs. 5 Lacs else she is not required to come back. The applicant resided in her maternal home, there at Seoni, for about 10 to 11 days and meanwhile respondent reminded her on phone regarding the money with which she has to return back. Thereafter, respondent brought her to Chhindwada and on 20.02.2015 applicant, when her brother came to Chhindwada to take her the applicant with her brother came to Bhatapara. Thereafter, respondent or any member of his family did not came to take her and were avoiding by pretext of promise to come within 10 to 15 days. One month passed away but none came and on phone respondent, applicant's sister in-law and mother in-law said that only if she will come with Rs. 5 Lacs only then someone will be sent to take her back. 4. respondent never came to Bhatapara to take her back and filed a false application in Parivar Paramarsh Kendra Chhindwada, stating that family members of the applicant are not sending her back. The 3 applicant appeared in said centre and stated the true events in writing and also stated that she was ready to go back but respondent sought time for the same but did not come to take her. respondent submitted an application under Section 12 (2) in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court Chhindwada to declare the marriage as void which was ultimately dismissed. 5. The respondent has left the applicant without any reason and is not taking her back thus since 20.02.2015, the applicant is residing in her matrimonial home there at Bhatapara. The mother and father of applicant are no more. The applicant has poor financial condition to look after herself as she has no source of income. On the other hand the respondent runs a shop of computer trainee and sale apart from the agricultural farm house situated in Ghat Parasiya. He also has a concerned named as Takshshila ITI training centre by which he earns Rs. 75,000/- per month. The respondent is deliberately neglecting in maintenance of the applicant. The respondent, without any reason, on the basis of non fulfillment of said demand of amount of Rs. 5 Lacs, has deserted her because of which the applicant is compelled to reside in her matrimonial home. Stating about the jurisdiction of the Court the applicant has requested to pass an order against the respondent to direct him to make payment of maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 6. After issuance of notice, the respondent filed the reply and denied the contentions of the applicant. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence and material available on record has passed the impugned order and dismissed the application under Section 125 4 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, on the ground that the wife/applicant is living separately from the husband/respondent without any sufficient reasons. Hence, this application. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondent is having sufficient fund to maintain the applicant and there is no finding about applicants capability to maintain herself then superficial inference that the applicant is living separately of her own, without any sufficient reason is perverse and against the material available on record. It is also submitted that the applicant has not willfully deserted the respondent, she has been compelled by him and his family members in background of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs and inability to fill the demands they have not allowed the applicant to come back to respondent’s home and have avoided to take her back. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and submits that there is no any interference is called for. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 20.11.2025, the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre on 27.11.2025, but the mediation has been failed as the parties are not ready to reside with each other. Therefore, the instant revision being 5 devoid of merits, and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court as well as the report of the Mediation Centre, it transpires that in compliance of the order dated 20.11.2025, the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre on 27.11.2025, but the mediation has been failed as the parties are not ready to reside with each other. It is clear that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 171/2019, and dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant, for grant of maintenance, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week, for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar