1 2026:CGHC:1949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 31 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ramhin Bai W/o Hemlal Dhritlahre Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Suhela, P.S. Suhela Tahsil Suhela, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satya Kumar S/o Hemlal Dhritlahre Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ramdin Bai W/o Hemlal Dhritlahre, R/o Village Suhela, P.S. Suhela Tahsil Suhela, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Hemlal Dhritlahre S/o Shri Ramsingh Dhritlahre Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Suhela, P.S. Suhela Tahsil Suhela, Distict Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 09.09.2025 and also may kindly be granted RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month in respect of case of applicant No. 1 and to enhance and grant as application under maintenance amount section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No.1 and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock applicant No.2, aged about 14 years, was born. Applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, alleging that after a brief period of marital harmony, the respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside with Applicant No.2 at her parental house. It was further pleaded that Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is employed in a cement factory earning about Rs.20,000/- per month and also owns agricultural land yielding annual income. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations. However, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 09.09.2025, dismissed the application without granting any maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record. It is 3 contended that Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, yet the learned Family Court rejected her application without granting any maintenance, despite clear evidence of cruelty, harassment, and forcible ouster from the matrimonial home. The learned court failed to appreciate that Applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is facing severe financial hardship, whereas the respondent is gainfully employed in a cement factory earning about Rs.20,000/- per month and also possesses agricultural land generating additional income. It is further submitted that the respondent subjected Applicant No.1 to mental and physical cruelty, including dowry demands and assault, and never made any sincere effort to resume cohabitation. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind, ignores settled principles of law, and deprives the applicant of her statutory and legal right to maintenance, thereby causing grave injustice. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate maintenance be awarded in favour of applicant No.1 in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide order 4 dated 09.09.2025. The court has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, including the respective contentions of the parties, and found that the applicant failed to establish sufÏcient grounds warranting grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and passed a reasoned order in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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