1 2026:CGHC:2994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 97 of 2026 Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Shri Leeladhar Sahu Aged About 23 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Salhetola, Police Station, Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Leeladhar Sahu S/o Shri Kewal Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Hirapur, Police Station, Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 86/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed 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 is the legally wedded wife fo the respondent, Their marriage was solemnized on 27.03.2023 according to Hindu Rites and customs, and thereafter, the applicant started residing in her matrimonial home. within 15 days of the marriage, the non-applicant started subjecting the applicant to cruelty, harassment and physical and mental torture, on account of demand of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 dowry, and repeatedly pressurized her to bring money and articles from her parental house. Due to continuous harassment and ill-treatment, the applicant was compelled to return to her parental home on 11.07.2023. Thereafter, a social meeting was convened, pursuant to which the applicant again joined the company of the non-applicant and lived with him for about three months, however, the harassment and cruelty continued unabated. Ultimately, on 29.01.2024, the applicant was again compelled to leave her matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her old aged parents, having no independent source of income. The applicant, having no means to maintain herself, filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC, claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. 4. 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, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that cruelty and dowry harassment constitute sufficient cause for living separately under Section 125 of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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 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, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar