1 2026:CGHC:2793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 210 of 2023 Smt. Neha Sharma W/o Rangesh Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Mangal Bhawan, Near Bhai Ki Bagiya, Infront Of Annapurna Anaj Bhandar, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Rangesh Sharma S/o Shri Nand Kishore Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Naharpara, Jhulelal Chowk, Pipe Godown, Panjwani Gali, Raipur Chhattisgarh Also At Popcorn Studio 5th And 6th Floor, Marvel Vista, Sahaney Sujan Park, Lulla Nagar Chowk, Bibwewadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411037. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Om Kukreja, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kumar Soni, Advocate and Mr. Yash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. C.R. 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: “The applicant humbly and most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 23/12/2022 passed in Criminal MCC No. 627/2022.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.06.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Niranjan Dharamshala, VIP Road, Raipur, and that the parties are presently living separately with no issue born out of the wedlock. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging dowry demand, mental and physical cruelty, retention of her stridhan, and desertion, and claimed that she has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent is earning sufÏciently. The respondent, however, denied all allegations and pleaded that the applicant is a highly educated woman, gainfully employed, engaged in beauty parlour work, maintaining bank accounts, servicing loan EMIs, and is financially independent. Upon appreciation and analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court recorded a finding that although the applicant was not living separately of her own volition, she failed to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. Consequently, holding that the essential ingredients of Section 125 CrPC were not satisfied, the learned Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application for maintenance. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, after 3 having been married to the respondent on 29.06.2018, and that due to continuous harassment and dowry demands by the respondent and his family, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 14.12.2019 and reside with her mother and brother. It is contended that the applicant is presently jobless, suffering from ailments such as diabetes and high blood pressure on account of the cruelty meted out to her, and is unable to maintain herself. The learned Family Court, though having rightly recorded a finding that the applicant was living separately for valid reasons, has erred in dismissing the application on the ground that she failed to prove her inability to maintain herself, solely on the basis of an unverified bank statement produced by the respondent, which was duly objected to by the applicant but was not considered by the Court. It is further submitted that the burden of proving that the applicant was gainfully employed lay upon the respondent, which he failed to discharge, and that mere assumptions regarding the applicant being an income-tax payee or a guarantor to a loan cannot disentitle her from maintenance. The learned Principal Judge also failed to consider that the income of the respondent was not disputed and that, in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Kamla, the object of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that a wife is maintained in a manner commensurate with the status and lifestyle she enjoyed during matrimony, which has not been adhered to in the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant 4 and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (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 has rightly appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. After due consideration of the rival contentions and upon proper analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court correctly recorded a finding that though the applicant was living separately from the respondent, she failed to prove that she is unable to maintain herself, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court has exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and has rightly held that the essential ingredients for grant of maintenance were not satisfied in the present case. The impugned order is well-reasoned, based on correct appreciation of facts 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. 5 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