1 2026:CGHC:8139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1323 of 2024 Smt. Debabani Dey (Incorrectly Referred To As Devabani) D/o Dulalratan Dey Aged About 47 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Housing Development Board, House No. -231, Lily Talpuri, Ruababdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Flat No. D-514, Avanti Elegance, Kachna, Raipur, District, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492014 ... Applicant versus Kaushik Basu S/o Shri Neelkamal Basu Aged About 53 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Housing Development Board, House No. -231, Lily Talpuri, Ruababdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Through MD/CEO, Bukaro Steel City, Ranchi (Jharkhand), Pin Code- 827001 ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1029/2021, whereby the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant has been rejected by the learned Family Court. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 10:27:16 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the present revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, learned III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, with CNR No. CGDU03-002071-2021 in Case No. 1029/2-2021. Learned Court while passing the said order have rejected the application of the Application under section 125 CrPC, based on the fact the applicant uses an "I Phone" and was driven on a "Honda City" car. Learned Court arrived to the said conclusion based on the fact that the since during the time when the joint application under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, was preferred by the applicant and the respondent, the applicant had preemptively waved off her right to seek maintenance from the respondent herein. Leaned Court while passing the said order has failed to appreciate the fact that the right to seek maintenance is right conferred upon the applicant by virtue of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has completely ignored the facts on record, including the affidavits and documents submitted by the parties. The learned Family Court failed to consider that, by virtue of Section 125 CrPC, the respondent is statutorily obligated to provide maintenance to the applicant. This right is not negated by the applicant’s economic condition, employment, educational qualifications, or by the fact that she owns an iPhone or was driven in a Honda City car. The Family Court ought to have appreciated that the applicant filed the present application under Section 125 CrPC because she was medically weakened and incapable of sustaining herself. Although she had joint property for her survival, it was fraudulently dispossessed by the respondent. The learned Family Court ought to have recognized that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a 3 statutory right and cannot be denied to the applicant under any prevailing circumstances. The Family Court should have adopted a compassionate approach given the applicant’s plight. The learned Family Court erroneously rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that she is an educated woman capable of self-support. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even working women are entitled to maintenance from their husbands. The applicant’s statutory right to receive maintenance was therefore wrongly denied. An affidavit in support is filed herewith. 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 parties, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted 4 to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti