1 2025:CGHC:31311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 131 of 2021 Smt. Bharti Tandan W/o Shri Mohan @ Dudhnath Tandon Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Post Amera Sakari, Thana And Tahsil Balodabajar, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Mohan @ Dudhnath Tandan S/o Shri Darasram @ Chatur Tandan Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kharha (Bamhani) Thana And Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the Non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 may KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 kindly be set aside and suitable amount may kindly be awarded looking to the facts and circumstances as well as looking to present status of living, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and non applicant was solemnized on 07.05.2019 as per the custom in the society at Village - Kharha and after marriage, she started residing with the non-applicant at village Kharha and living their matrimonial life. The parents of the applicant were given sufficient cash amount as well as house hold articles at the time of marriage and after some time, non-applicant started harassment for insufficient dowry and demanded cash from the parents of applicant and also started torturing her by using filthy language and on the instructions as well as direction of the family members non-applicant beaten her badly and ousted from house and left her at her parental home stating that when the demand is fulfill than you reached to house. Thereafter, the matter is reported before women police station Balodabajar and counseling was taken place but no fruitful result was come in the counseling further the applicants parents are poor person and the non-applicant having sufficient means as he is in Govt. Job having salary of Rs. 44,245/- per month and also having the agriculture land and income from the said land and he is duty bound to maintain her. Dur to lack of financial hardship, she filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month along with the application for interim maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the non-applicant appear and file the written 3 statement, denying the averment and prayed for dismissal of the application. It is alleged that the non-applicant and his family members have never harassed the applicant in any manner. It was the applicant herself who did not wish to live with the family members of the non-applicant. Whenever the non-applicant tried to explain matters to her, she would get angry and insist on going to her maternal uncle’s house in village Temari. When the non- applicant asked her to stay at home, she would create unnecessary disputes. The present application has been filed by the applicant solely with the intention to harass the non-applicant and his family members. Neither the non-applicant nor his family members ever demanded any money or dowry from the applicant. The applicant repeatedly left the matrimonial home and went to village Temari on her own accord. Distressed by her conduct, the non-applicant and his family members even convened a social meeting in village Kharha, but the applicant clearly refused to return and live with the non-applicant. The non-applicant wishes to keep the applicant with him, but the applicant is deliberately and without any valid reason refusing to live with him and is attempting to implicate him in a false case. The applicant is a healthy woman and is capable of maintaining herself. 5. The learned Family Court, upon receiving the reply from the non- applicant, framed five issues for determination. After recording the evidence of both parties, the Court, based on the evidence on record, arrived at the finding that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient or justifiable cause. It was further observed 4 that the non-applicant is willing to keep the applicant with him and is ready to continue the matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed the application vide order dated 02.02.2021. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court had erred in passing the order impugned by rejecting the application of the applicant without considering the fact that the non applicant having sufficient means to maintain the applicant and the marriage is admitted between the parties, applicant is residing separately due to harassment and cruel treatment by the non applicant and his family members. The learned Family Court has failed to see that the evidence in the case clearly proved that the applicant has been ousted by the non-applicant and she did not have and source of income to maintain herself. He further submits that the findings of the learned Family Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record which deserve to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant against the non- 5 applicant, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/-per month. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant frequently left the matrimonial home and went to village Temari on her own. The applicant, without any sufficient or reasonable cause, was deliberately refusing to reside with the non-applicant. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal