1 2026:CGHC:8094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 831 of 2024 Ajeeta Thawait W/o Sharad Prasad Thawait, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Chhuikhadan, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Sharad Prasad Thawait S/o Premlal Thawait, Aged About 30 Years R/o Infront Of Mahamaya Mandir, Champa, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Camp Court, Kabirdham Family court Khairagarh, District – Khairagarh- 2 Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.59/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.06.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant started residing with the respondent at the matrimonial home. As per the case of the applicant, after the marriage the respondent became habitual of consuming liquor and allegedly subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. It was further alleged that the respondent and his family members demanded a cash amount of Rs.50,000/- along with other household articles. The applicant has stated that in the year 2020 she was ousted from the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing at her parental house. On account of the alleged cruelty and neglect, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent. In the said application, she pleaded that the respondent is working as a Supervisor in a coal mine and earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month, besides having agricultural land situated at Village Chhuikhadan from which he earns additional income. She contended that the respondent has sufficient means but has neither taken any steps to bring her back nor paid any maintenance amount, whereas she has no independent source of 3 income and is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, she claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply denying all the allegations made by the applicant. After hearing both the parties and perusing the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Family Court framed an issue for determination and ultimately rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind, and is contrary to the very object and spirit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is enacted to prevent destitution and vagrancy of a legally wedded wife. The learned Court failed to appreciate that it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. He further submits that the learned Family Court did not properly consider the material available on record, including the fact that the respondent was earning a gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and had sufficient means to maintain the applicant. The Court further failed to consider that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and strict proof as required in civil trials is not necessary, thereby rendering the impugned order unjustified and unsustainable in law. He also 4 submits that the learned Court below also overlooked the fact that the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are therefore contrary to the evidence and settled principles of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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 and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant, holding that the applicant failed to establish that she was residing separately from the respondent for any sufficient or reasonable cause. The Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, observed that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were not substantiated by any cogent evidence, and even in cross-examination the applicant admitted that no demand was made at the time of marriage and no complaint or documentary proof of alleged harassment was produced on record. The learned Court further noted that the applicant had gone to her parental home in February 2020 for 5 preparation of her B.Sc. examination and that the respondent himself had escorted her there. It was also observed that the respondent made efforts on several occasions to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but the applicant refused to return without assigning any justified reason. In view of these findings, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, resulting in dismissal of the application. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil