1 2026:CGHC:14401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 34 of 2025 Sampati Bai W/o Kariman Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Beldagi, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. ... Applicant versus Kariman Ram S/o Late Sundarsai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Beldagi, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and impugned order dated 06.09.2024, passed by Family Court, Ambikapur, District. Surguja, C.G. passed in Misc. Cr. Case no. 137/2023, passed in the matter of "Sampatti Bai Vs. Kariman Ram", (Annex. A/1) may kindly be set aside and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 application filed by the applicant under sec. 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure may kindly be allowed.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent, stating that they are legally wedded spouses and their marriage was solemnized about 15 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs, out of which three children were born. It was averred that initially the parties lived a cordial matrimonial life, however, about eight years prior, the behaviour of the respondent changed, and he became addicted to liquor and cannabis, and under the influence thereof, subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, abused and assaulted her, ill-treated the children and threatened to remarry. It was further alleged that the respondent ultimately drove the applicant out of the matrimonial home and contracted a second marriage with one Bholi, resident of Village Manpur, District Surguja, from which a female child was born, and since then the applicant has been residing with her parents, who are financially weak. It was also stated that the respondent owns agricultural land measuring about 5–6 acres and earns approximately Rs. 2,00,000/- annually from cultivation, besides running a Murra and Poha business earning about Rs. 15,000–20,000/- per month, and therefore, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month was claimed as maintenance. Despite service of notice, the respondent failed to file any reply and was proceeded ex parte. The learned Family Court, after framing points for 3 determination and considering the evidence led by the applicant, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2024, dismissed the application holding that the applicant failed to establish sufÏcient cause for living separately, as well as failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and remarriage, further observing that a customary divorce had taken place between the parties, and also making certain adverse observations regarding the character of the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law, as the Court below has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective, resulting in perverse findings. It is contended that the finding regarding absence of sufÏcient cause for the applicant to live separately is wholly unsustainable and has been recorded without due consideration of the material available on record, and the learned Family Court has further erred in holding that the applicant failed to prove cruelty inflicted by the respondent while under intoxication, merely on the ground that the children are residing with the respondent, without examining the circumstances under which they are residing with him. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the application on the ground of alleged customary divorce, ignoring the fact that the parties are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, under which such divorce is not legally recognized without a decree 4 of a competent Court, and even otherwise, a divorced woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband until her remarriage. It is also contended that the finding of the learned Family Court that the applicant failed to prove remarriage of the respondent is erroneous, as the applicant had specifically disclosed the name and residence of the woman concerned, and being a rustic and financially weak lady, could not be expected to produce documentary evidence in that regard. It is further submitted that despite service of notice, the respondent failed to file any reply and was proceeded ex parte, and therefore, the unrebutted testimony of the applicant ought to have been accepted. It is also urged that the learned Family Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in making unwarranted and adverse observations regarding the character of the applicant, which are not borne out from the record. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application for maintenance ought to have been allowed by granting a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant.. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the applicant and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 06.09.2024. The learned Family Court, after proper evaluation of the material on record, has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish 5 sufÏcient cause for residing separately from the respondent and has also failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and remarriage. The finding with regard to existence of a customary divorce between the parties has also been recorded on the basis of evidence and circumstances brought on record. Merely because the respondent was proceeded ex parte, the same does not absolve the applicant from discharging the burden of proof, which she has failed to do. The learned Family Court has thus rightly concluded that no case for grant of maintenance is made out. The findings so recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan