Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13220 (CHH)

SMT. BHANU ALIGI v. SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR VEDULA

CRR/1324/2023 · 2026-01-26

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:4492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1324 of 2023 Smt. Bhanu Aligi W/o Shri Pravin Kumar Vedula, Aged About 28 Years R/o In Front Of Gramin Bank, Ice Cream Street, Nearsatbahaniya Temple, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shri Pravin Kumar Vedula S/o Shri V Ramshanshu Vedula, Aged About 36 Years R/o Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, Khichriya Complex, Plot No. 2, Block No. 2 M, Nehru Parisar (Commercial) Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Nelson Panna, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Nelson Panna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 305/2020, 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 marriage between the present applicant and respondent was solemnized with respondent on 10.02.2019 at chabbra palace Bilaspur as per the Hindu rites and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 rituals. At the time of marriage itself the respondent husband and his relatives demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) and a car for marriage but when the family members of the applicant assured them the marriage was solemnize. Even after the marriage the respondent and its family members started ill-treating the applicant and demanded dowry rupees 10 Lakh from time to time and used abusive language against the applicant and started harassing the applicant. When the applicant was Levin at her matrimonial home the relatives of the respondent and his relatives again demanded dowry of Gold and Silver ornaments and they used to warn the family of the applicant for dire consequences the harassment and interference of the family members of the respondent was so much that they even used to restrict the applicant and respondent from cohabiting with each other. The respondent before the marriage was having an affair with another women and was in adulterous relationship. 4. The applicant tried her level best to keep the marriage alive but when the harassment of the respondent crossed all the limits the applicant on 19.10.2020 filed a written complaint before the Women Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.) stating her all grievances stating that after the harassment the respondent forced her to leave her matrimonial home and also warned the applicant that if she will file any complaint against them before any authority he will shoot her and will kill her. The applicant stating the above mentioned experience prayed to the Police authority to take legal action against the respondent and his family members. 5. As nothing was heard from the side of the Police authorities for long 3 time the applicant on 24.11.20 filed an application under Section 156(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC and raised all the grounds and grievances and prayed for registering FIR against the respondent and his family members who has committed the applicant to cruelty and further prayed that the respondent be punished under Section 498A/34 of IPC the said case was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 19.03.2021. 6. A bare perusal of the above mentioned facts clearly shows that the respondent and his family members has subjected the applicant to cruelty and has harassed her by ill-treating her and also demanded dowry from her and due to the said harassment the applicant was compelled to live separately from her husband but the learned Family Court without considering the documents available on record, only on the basis of oral evidence adduced by the applicant and respondent passed the order, stating that the applicant has failed to prove that she is living at her parent's house due to ill treatment of the respondent. Hence, this revision. 7. 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 consider that due to the ill treatment and mental and physical harassment committed by the respondent, the applicant left the house of the respondent and living separately from him, and harassment is a sufficient ground life separately from the husband. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 4 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 305/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 which requires interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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