1 2025:CGHC:28169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 220 of 2019 Pooja Verma W/o Manoj Verma Aged About 25 Years At Present of Village Motesara, Police Station and Tahsil Saja, Post Devarbija, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus Manoj S/o Ramnarayan Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Munglatola, Tahsil Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kapil Maini, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.187/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:08:54 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized in the year 2010, and out of their wedlock a boy was born namely Ishan Verma. After two years of marriage, the respondent, after consuming liquor, started beating the applicant and she was also subjected to cruelty by her in-laws members but, the applicant bearing all the cruelty extended to her by her in-laws including respondent, with a hope that the behavior of her in-laws including respondent will change in future, but of no avail and the cruelty was increasing day-by-day and ultimately she ousted from her in-law's house. Thereafter, the applicant herself tried to go back to her in-law's house and maintains relations with a hope that the things will change but she was frighten away. On 19.05.2017, the applicant went to the in-law's house to bring her son, but she was badly beaten by her in-law's and also threatened her for dire consequences, if she will return in her matrimonial house again. Thereafter, the applicant went to the Sajna Police Station, District- Bemetara and lodged an FIR for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 vide Crime No. 202/2017, against the in-laws, for the above mentioned acts. Further, the applicant herein is a housewife and she has no source of income to survive herself, whereas the responded earns around Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum from farming and another Rs. 20,000/- from driving harvester, therefore the respondent is a well paid person. The applicant filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- per month. The respondent herein filed the reply of the said application and in the reply, he denied the allegation except the admitted fact. After hearing both the parties, by the order impugned, the learned trial Court has rejected the 3 application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. by holding that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get maintenance. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order is perverse, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court while passing the order impugned, failed to notice that respondent has good income from different sources. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent used to beat the applicant and ultimately she was kicked out from the matrimonial house by her in-laws. Further, the learned Family Court has committed serious error of law in holding that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a housewife and she has no source of income and is facing great difficulties to survive herself, hence being legally wedded wife, she is legally entitled to get maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant has never tried to take back the applicant with him, which itself indicates that she is not willing to keep the applicant with him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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 applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife is living separately from the respondent without any proper and sufficient reason. Further, the respondent and his parents have not harassed the applicant in any way. As a result, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected under the application filed by the applicant. 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. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti