1 2026:CGHC:7383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 311 of 2022 1. Smt. B. Rama Rao W/o B. Keshav Rao, Aged About 30 Years Present R/o Near Raipur Convent School, Neem Dabri Road, House No. 293, Shivanand Nagar Road, Sector 01, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Minor B. Mohit Rao, S/o B. Keshav Rao, Aged About 1 Years (Minor On Behalf Of Through His Legal/ Natural Guardian Mother Of The Applicant No. 1 Smt. B. Rama Rao) Present R/o Near Raipur Convent School, Neem Dabri Road, House No. 293, Shivanand Nagar Road, Sector 01, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicants versus B. Keshav Rao S/o Late Shri B. Ramuloo, Aged About 39 Years R/o L.I.G.-1- 751, Ward No. 15, Housing Board Bhilai, Durg, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.285/2020, whereby the applicants for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed by the learned Family Court and directed the husband/respondent to pay PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.11 12:39:10 +0530 2 Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No.2 and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No.1 and the respondent are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, one male child was born on 30.08.2019, who is Applicant No. 2. It is an admitted fact that Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and Applicant No. 2 is their legitimate son. The applicants filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 285/2020 before the Family Court, Raipur. By interim order dated 04.08.2021, the learned Family Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month to Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month to Applicant No. 2. Subsequently, by final order dated 07.12.2021 in the said case, the learned Family Court rejected the maintenance claim of Applicant No. 1 on the ground that she failed to prove sufficient cause for residing separately. However, the application was partly allowed in respect of Applicant No. 2, and maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded to him, being the legitimate child of the respondent. In her application, Applicant No. 1 stated that after marriage she was treated well initially, but later she was subjected to cruelty, harassment, abuse, and dowry- related demands by the respondent and his family members. She alleged that she was threatened and ultimately forced to reside at her parental home. She further stated that she has no independent source of income and is dependent on her parents, whereas the respondent is employed as a Professor at Shankracharya Technical Campus College, earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient income, the respondent neglected to maintain her and the child. The respondent filed his reply denying all allegations and contended that Applicant No. 1 is 3 residing separately without sufficient and reasonable cause. He denied all allegations of cruelty and harassment. After recording evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, partly allowed the application by awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month to Applicant No. 2 and rejecting the claim of Applicant No. 1. The rejection of maintenance to Applicant No. 1 is illegal, perverse, and without proper application of mind. The impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), is contrary to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, which entitles a wife to maintenance if she is residing separately for sufficient and reasonable cause. The order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and suitably modified. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present Criminal Revision seeking setting aside of the impugned order and grant of maintenance to Applicant No. 1 along with appropriate enhancement. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the law and the facts on record. The learned Family Court unjustifiably rejected the claim of Applicant No. 1 for maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact that Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. She is residing separately for sufficient and reasonable cause, as she was subjected to cruelty, harassment, and dowry-related demands by the respondent and his family members. Due to such ill-treatment, she was compelled to reside at her parental home. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate this material aspect and based its findings on erroneous presumptions. The evidence on record shows that Applicant No. 1, along with her parents and relatives, made several efforts to reconcile and resume cohabitation; however, the respondent made no effort to bring her back. It 4 was specifically alleged that during her pregnancy she was ill-treated by the respondent and his family members. Such conduct clearly establishes cruelty and provides sufficient and reasonable cause for her separate residence, entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the testimony of the applicants’ witnesses, who clearly deposed regarding cruelty, harassment, and dowry demands. The evidence further shows that the respondent left Applicant No. 1 at her parental home against her will. These facts establish that she is residing separately for valid reasons and is entitled to maintenance. The Court also failed to consider that the respondent neglected Applicant No. 1 during her pregnancy, and their child was born on 30.08.2019. The respondent’s conduct demonstrates neglect and cruelty, further entitling Applicant No. 1 to maintenance. Although evidence from both parties was recorded, the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in favour of the applicants. There was sufficient material on record to establish that Applicant No. 1 was living separately for sufficient cause. The learned Family Court committed a gross illegality in passing the impugned order, contrary to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC, which entitle a wife to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself and is residing separately for reasonable cause. The Court also failed to consider that by interim order dated 04.08.2021, maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- per month was granted to Applicants No. 1 and 2 respectively, which itself indicated prima facie entitlement. The rejection of maintenance to Applicant No. 1 in the final order is inconsistent and unjustified. Applicant No. 1 has always been ready and willing to reside with the respondent, but the respondent has refused to cohabit and has made false allegations against her. The applicants seek 5 liberty to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. The impugned order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, perverse, and liable to be quashed and suitably modified. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti