1 2026:CGHC:5780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1067 of 2024 Smt. Sangeeta Yadav D/o Shri Bablu Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Uliya, Post OfÏce - Jigdi, Police Station - Pasta, Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), Present Resident Of Village Khurandih, Police Station Dhourpur, Tahsil - Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Ashok Yadav S/o Shri Ramswasth Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Uliya (Jigdi), Post OfÏce Jigdi, Police Station - Pasta, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur may kindly be set aside by this Court and to allow the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant-wife in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant herein filed an application KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance from the non-applicant-husband to the tune of ₹10,000/- per month. It was alleged in the application that she was married to the non-applicant on 12.05.2022 thereafter, the applicant and the non-applicant lived together as husband and wife till 12.10.2022. However, on and prior to the aforesaid date, the applicant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of demand for dowry and was denied entry into her matrimonial home by the non-applicant and his family members. Her husband left her at her parental home and threatened that if she returned, he would kill her. Since then, she has been residing separately at her parental home. The applicant has no sufÏcient source of income, whereas the non-applicant has sufÏcient means to maintain her therefore, she prayed before the learned Family Court for grant of above maintenance. 3. The non-applicant filed a reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that a false report has been lodged against him by the applicant wife. It was further stated that the non-applicant is a very poor person, having no source of income and no private agricultural land. He is earning his livelihood by working on government land. There is no other earning member in his family, and he has a great responsibility to maintain his family. It was also stated that the applicant wife is an educated lady and is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, in such circumstances, the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Family Court 3 framed issues in the case. During the pendency of the case, the non-applicant was proceeded ex parte. On the basis of the evidence produced by the applicant wife, the Family Court rejected the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, the applicant wife did not submit the disclosure afÏdavit in the proper manner. The Family Court further held that on the basis of oral evidence alone, it could not be established that the non- applicant husband is an earning member having sufÏcient source of income. It was also held that it was not proved that the wife was living separately for a lawful reason, therefore, her application was rejected by the Family Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case and is therefore not sustainable. It is contended that the Family Court has committed a grave error of law in not awarding maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the applicant, despite the material available on record. The Court failed to properly appreciate that the non-applicant and his family members subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands and denied her entry into the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside at her parental home, which clearly constitutes a lawful and sufÏcient reason for living separately. However, the learned Family Court wrongly decided Issue Nos. 4 and 5 without proper appreciation of these facts. It is further submitted that the Family Court ignored the fact that the non- 4 applicant has sufÏcient means to maintain the applicant but has willfully neglected to do so, and despite this, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were also decided erroneously without proper consideration of the material facts and evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justifiable or sufÏcient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justified conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal