1 2026:CGHC:2796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1290 of 2023 Akanksha Shrivash W/o Pawan Shrivash Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Kosabadi, Kanchanpur, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Cg, At Present R/o Village- Ramgarh, Tahsil- Mungeli,, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Pawan Shrivash S/o Itwari Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Kosabadi, Kanchanpur, Tahsil- Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside, the order dated 11.08.2023, passed by the court of family Court, Mungeli, District: Mungeli, (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 72/2023, and further be pleased to allow the maintenance application filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner on account of dowry demand, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents, and that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself, whereas the respondent has sufÏcient means. The respondent/non-applicant filed his reply admitting the factum of marriage but denying all other allegations. After framing of issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 11.08.2023, dismissed the maintenance application on the ground that the petitioner failed to specifically prove the allegations of harassment against the respondent. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and suffers from serious legal infirmities. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant and has completely overlooked the fact that the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to continuous harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the respondent. He further submits that despite sufÏcient material on 3 record establishing cruelty, the learned Family Court erred in denying maintenance to the applicant, which is not in accordance with law and ignores the financial condition and helplessness of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant, by leading cogent evidence, has duly proved that she had just and sufÏcient cause to live separately, and therefore, in terms of the settled provisions of law, she is entitled to the benefit of maintenance, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of both the parties, proper framing of issues, and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Court has correctly held that though the factum of marriage between the parties was admitted, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the specific allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the respondent by cogent and reliable evidence. The findings recorded by the learned Family 4 Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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