1 2026:CGHC:7049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 163 of 2026 Smt. Reshma Akhtar W/o Sheikh Amjad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Lakhanpur, P.S. And Tehisl Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Sheikh Amjad S/o Late Abdul Rajjak Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khongapani, (Pakka Dhaudo), P.S. Jhagarakhad, Tehsil Manendragarh - Chirmiri- Bharatpur (M.C. B.) (C.G.) Present Address- S.E.C.L. Ramnagar, P.S. Ramnagar, District- Annuppur (M.P.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “1. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision application of the applicant and set-aside the order of dismissal dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) in interest of justice. 2. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to provide maintenance awarded of Rs. 50,000/- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 or any other amount which this hon'ble court may deems fit for her maintenance in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) per month from the non-applicant. It was pleaded that both the applicant and the non-applicant are Muslims and were married on 30.04.2019. After the marriage, the non-applicant took the applicant to his native village, Khongapani. It is not in dispute that no child was born out of the said wedlock. Shortly after the marriage, the non-applicant and his family members allegedly started subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty in connection with dowry demands. Despite repeated attempts, the harassment did not stop and in December 2020, the applicant was allegedly forced out of the matrimonial home. Being aggrieved, she lodged an FIR on 05.03.2021 at Police Station Lakhanpur, bearing Crime No. 49/2021, under Section 498A/34 of the IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. The applicant stated that due to the non-appliant’s cruelty, she became physically weak and mentally traumatized. She further alleged that the non- applicant had earlier married one Samar Fatima, whom he also harassed for dowry and later abandoned. The applicant pleaded that she is unemployed and has no source of income and is wholly dependent on the non-applicant for survival. She stated that her father is old and ill and unable to support her. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant is employed in a coal field and earns more 3 than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, and also runs a restaurant in partnership at Ramnagar, District Anuppur, earning an additional Rs. 25,000–30,000/- per month. The non-applicant has allegedly neglected and refused to maintain her since December 2020. Hence, she sought maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the non-applicant before the learned Family Court concerned. 3. Upon notice, the non-applicant appeared and denied all allegations. He stated that he had previously married Samar Fatima Ansari and divorced her on 08.02.2017, which fact was known to the applicant. He contended that the applicant belongs to a wealthy family and had been living in a permanent house in Raipur even before marriage. Due to her lifestyle, she was unwilling to live in a joint family and insisted on a separate residence. He alleged that her family threatened to implicate him in a false dowry case. He also raised objections regarding her spending habits and unwillingness to perform household work. The non-applicant further submitted that he had earlier submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Korea, on 26.10.2020, apprehending false implication. He stated that the applicant filed a case for return of Stridhan, in which an ex-parte order was later set aside. He alleged that the 498-A case was filed to tarnish his reputation. He stated that before the Sakhi Centre, Ambikapur, he expressed willingness to keep the applicant, but she refused. He also referred to a reconciliation meeting before the Anjuman Committee on 06.01.2021. He denied all dowry demands. He further submits that he was appointed on compassionate grounds after his father’s 4 death and is the sole bread earner of his family, including his ailing younger brother and other dependents. He contended that the applicant is more educated (M.Sc., B.Ed.), was working as a teacher earning Rs. 35,000/- per month and voluntarily resigned on 01.02.2021 to claim maintenance. He alleged that she is presently running coaching classes and earning Rs. 40,000–50,000/- per month. He stated that she is living separately by choice without sufÏcient cause and prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 4. The learned Family Court, after framing issues and considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, rejected the applicant’s application for maintenance, holding that she failed to establish sufÏcient reason to live separately and claim maintenance. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record and thus liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Family Court wrongly disbelieved the applicant’s case on the ground that cruelty was not specifically pleaded, despite the applicant (PW-1) and her witness (PW-2) supporting the allegations and the FIR and charge-sheet (Ex.P-2) clearly detailing the manner of harassment and torture, which evidence has been ignored. It is further submitted that the non-applicant produced no material to show genuine efforts for reconciliation or willingness to resume cohabitation. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 5 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and are to be decided on the preponderance of probabilities, not by applying strict rules of evidence. The pendency of Crime No. 49/2021 under Section 498A/34 IPC demonstrates continuing cruelty and provides sufÏcient cause for the applicant to live separately. It is also urged that the non-applicant, admittedly employed with S.E.C.L., has sufÏcient means, whereas the applicant has no independent source of income and being a legally wedded wife, is entitled to maintenance. Further, the non-applicant’s prior marriage, allegedly undisclosed at the time of marriage, constitutes mental cruelty and justifies separate residence. Despite these facts, the learned Family Court failed to grant maintenance, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justifiable or sufÏcient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a 6 thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal