1 2026:CGHC:5576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 227 of 2024 Smt. Taruna Sori W/o Ravishankar Netam Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Dihipara, Nagri, Tahsil-Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ravishankar Netam S/o Mansukh Ram Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Lakhanpuri, Post-Podagaon, Tahsil-Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Udyog Kendra, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 and allow maintenance in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that The applicant–wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, pleading that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2018 and that after marriage she went to the matrimonial home to discharge her marital obligations, where she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demands and was ultimately ousted, compelling her to reside at her parental home. It was further pleaded that the applicant has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is employed as an Assistant Manager at Udyog Kendra, Dantewada, earning about Rs.50,000/- per month and also possesses agricultural land, yet failed to maintain her. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the applicant is living separately without any reasonable cause and is therefore not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, by impugned order dated 06.02.2024, rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, arbitrary, perverse and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the respondent is habitual in subjecting his wife to cruelty, on account of which his first wife had earlier left him and a divorce had taken place between them. The learned Court further erred in ignoring the fact that the applicant was subjected to physical assault, cruelty and dowry demands, pursuant to which 3 she lodged complaints before the Police Station, Nagri and the Superintendent of Police, and was advised to approach the Court. It is submitted that the respondent never made any effort to resume cohabitation and did not file any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which clearly establishes neglect and refusal to maintain the applicant. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the applicant has no independent source of income and is living separately for a just and reasonable cause, having been ousted from the matrimonial home. Despite ample evidence showing that the respondent has sufÏcient means and earning capacity, the learned Court erroneously held that the applicant was residing separately without sufÏcient cause and denied her maintenance. The impugned findings are contrary to the material available on record, ignore the settled principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C., and result in grave injustice to the applicant, who is entitled to maintenance to sustain herself in accordance with the standard of living of the respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 after due and proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. The learned Court has rightly examined the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and, upon careful scrutiny, found that the applicant failed to establish 4 sufÏcient and reasonable cause for living separately from the respondent. The learned Family Court has further exercised sound judicial discretion in assessing the conduct of the parties and the requirements under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and correctly held that the essential ingredients for grant of maintenance were not proved. The impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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