1 2026:CGHC:2790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 294 of 2023 Smt. Jaleshwari Kurre W/o Bhuvaneshwar Kurre Aged About 26 Years Through Father Shankar Dayal Jangade, Address Village Dhourabhata, Police Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Bhuvaneshwar Kurre S/o Saheb Lal Kurre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gatora, Police Station and Tahsil Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.196/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance application of applicant/wife 2. The brief facts of the case is that the present applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and presently both parties are residing separately from each other. The non-applicant and his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty on account of dowry demands. The non-applicant also suspected the character of the applicant and assaulted PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.20 10:24:18 +0530 2 her. The applicant endured all such acts with the hope that the conduct of the non-applicant would improve. The non-applicant is working as a Constable in the Police Department and is earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. He also owns 5 acres of agricultural land in his native village Gatora, from which he earns approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum. On the other hand, the applicant has no source of income. Therefore, she prays for grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the non-applicant. In response to the application filed by the applicant, the non-applicant, in his reply, alleged that the applicant is living in adultery with Sub-Inspector Vijay Chelak, who was the S.H.O. and superior officer of the non-applicant. The applicant filed an application under Order 18, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and categorically denied the allegations regarding any adulterous relationship with Vijay Chelak, as well as the allegation that the applicant has any independent source of income. The non-applicant and his mother also filed their affidavits under Order18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., making allegations against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, has failed to consider the statement of the applicant with regard to the cruelty committed by the non-applicant and the false allegations made against her concerning Vijay Chelak. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 against the applicant. The learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, has awarded maintenance in favour of Applicants Nos. 2 and 3; however, no maintenance has been granted in favour of Applicant No. 1. For this reason, Applicant No. 1 is also entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her character is unblemished. The respondent has failed to prove any 3 allegation regarding bad character or adultery against the applicant. In the absence of any such proof, the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. The applicant is presently residing with her aged parents and has no independent source of income. The learned Family Court has merely drawn a presumption of adultery under Section 125(5) of the Cr.P.C. without any supporting evidence or documents filed by the non-applicant. Such a presumption is illegal and unsustainable in law, and therefore the applicant is entitled to maintenance. The applicant had filed an application on 21.07.2015 before the Family Counselling Centre, Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, seeking reconciliation; however, the non-applicant refused the proposal. The learned Family Court failed to consider this material fact, which is in favour of the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 4 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