1 2025:CGHC:48600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 107 of 2021 Smt. Hemlata Dubey W/o Kamal Kishore Dubey, Aged About 30 Years R/o Piparbhavana, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicant versus Kamal Kishor Dubey S/o Late Krishndayal Dubey, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And P.S. Sarsivan, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 400/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned Family Court, Balodabzar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for grant of maintenance with the pleading that she has totally dependent upon her parents and so far as the respondent is having 5 acres Agriculture Land and a house which RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 cost is Rs. 10,00,000/- situated on the main road, Bazar Chowk and he is he has Job in the Tractor Show Room, Sarsivan and his salary is 10,000/- per month, but the respondent has not given maintenance to her. According to the applicant, she is a legally wedded wife of the respondent, her marriage has been took place on dated 10.03.1996, but after the marriage the husband had always in drunken condition and his behavior is not good and he has mentally and physically harass the applicant and always made a demand of dowry, the parents of the applicant have given T.V., Koolar, Fridge, Bed, Shopha, Cycle and other along with 3 Piece of Gold, 50 Piece of Silver ornaments, inspite of this the respondent had harass and torture her by saying that you bring less dowry from your parents' house and due to his continuous harassment and cruelty the applicant has told her parents about the said incident then her brothers have given a some of Rs. 30-40 thousand to her but her husband has not satisfy and said your brothers are in service and you only brings of Rs. 30-40 thousand and the respondent has torture and harass to the applicant and respondent has not taken proper care of the applicant. 4. In the year 2009 the respondent has assaulted to her hand by the stick due to his assault she sustain gravies injury on her hand and after that the respondent has left her in his maternal house Village Piparbhavana and threaten her if you come again in his house he will kill her and he burn alive and throw in filed and he has not properly take care of her and the respondent has always in drunken condition and in drunken condition used to torture her in order to get money from her maternal house while beating and respondent has physically and mentally harass and torture to her by saying that she not born child, so that the applicant has filed maintenance application. 3 5. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant was being subjected to mental and physical cruelty treated with the respondent which is just and sufficient reason for a wife to live separately from the husband, but despite the same the Family Court has rejected the claim of the applicant and the applicant has no any source of income. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicant’ 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, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. 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