1 2026:CGHC:7337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2064 of 2019 Smt. Yamuna (Yudhishthir) W/o Ramkishan Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Ulkhar, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Ramkishan @ Chakradhar Chandra S/o Late Mohan Lal Chandra Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Sulaunikala, Post And Police Station - Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 /02/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred the present petition against the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (now Sarangarh–Bilaigarh), Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 13/2018, arising out of the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (now Sarangarh–Bilaigarh) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 in Criminal Case No. 04/2014. By the said order dated 20.07.2018, the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted maintenance to the petitioner/wife at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/husband preferred a criminal revision before the learned revisional Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 07.06.2019, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the findings of the revisional Court, the petitioner/wife has filed the present petition. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded spouses and their marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2012. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her matrimonial home to perform her matrimonial obligations. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave dowry, gifts, and household articles, including utensils. However, from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected the petitioner to cruelty on account of demand for additional dowry. Ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial home, due to which she has been residing at her parental house. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance before the learned JMFC, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Now Sarangarh-Bilaigarh), stating therein that she had been ousted from the matrimonial home by her husband. It was further submitted that she lodged a complaint 3 before the Police, pursuant to which an offence under Sections 498- A/34 IPC was registered against the husband and other in-laws. The respondent has sufÏcient sources of income, yet he has failed to pay even a single penny towards her maintenance; therefore, she filed the said maintenance application. 3. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply to the maintenance application and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. After hearing both parties, the learned JMFC, Sarangarh, vide order dated 20.07.2018, partly allowed her maintenance application to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner/wife. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2018, the respondent preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, registered as Criminal Revision No. 13/2018. Vide order dated 07.06.2019, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision of the respondent, set aside the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned JMFC. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner most respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned revisional Court is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that from the very inception of the marriage, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of demand for dowry and was ultimately ousted from the matrimonial home, thereby furnishing sufficient and reasonable cause for her to live separately. It is further submitted that the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction 4 in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court, despite the settled legal position that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as in an appeal. The revisional Court also failed to consider that the respondent made no effort to take back the petitioner to the matrimonial home and that he has sufficient means to maintain her, being her legally wedded husband. The finding that the petitioner received Rs. 2,25,000/- in a social meeting and on that basis, is not entitled to maintenance is legally unsustainable and contrary to the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned order, being based on misappreciation of evidence and incorrect application of law, has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned JMFC, by order dated 20.07.2018, granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which order was assailed by the respondent/husband in Criminal Revision No. 13/2018. The learned revisional Court, after re- examining the material available on record, set aside the said order vide impugned order dated 07.06.2019. The record indicates that the revisional Court considered the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced, and the surrounding circumstances and arrived at the conclusion that the essential 5 ingredients for grant of maintenance were not satisfactorily established before the trial Court. The finding of the revisional Court that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the material aspects of the matter cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. 8. Considering the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, and in the absence of any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned revisional Court, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revisional Court acted within its jurisdiction and passed a reasoned order based on the material available on record. 9. Consequently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal