1 2026:CGHC:5384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1445 of 2024 Hemlata Lahare W/o Avadesh Kumar Lahare Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bandora, Thana- Malkharoda, Distric- Sakti, C.G. Present Address- Ward No. 22, Behind Church, Janjgir, Thana, Tahsil And District- Janjgir, C.G ... Applicant(s) versus Awdhesh Kumar Lahare S/o Sitaram Lahare @ Kuwaru Aged About 34 Years R/o Sikshak Anvadi Arlican Higher Secondary Birgaon, Thana- Birgaon,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Today the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 03/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay in paying the process fee. For the reasons mentioned, the same is allowed. The matter is heard finally. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by learned Family Court Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.11/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 05.06.2015 as per social rites and rituals, and after marriage the Applicant initially resided at the village house of the Non-applicant with his family members and thereafter accompanied him to his workplace at Bhanpuri, District Raipur (C.G.), where the Non-applicant is working as Assistant Teacher Grade-III at Aanvani Government Higher Secondary School, Birgaon, Raipur (C.G.). After about one year of marriage, the Non-applicant developed a love affair with one Sangeeta, as a result of which he started subjecting the Applicant to physical and mental cruelty, harassment and assault, and neglected his marital responsibilities towards her, which harassment further intensified from April 2019 onwards, and ultimately on 26.01.2020 the Non-applicant brutally beat the Applicant and forcibly sent her to her parental home, and despite efforts made by the Applicant’s parents and relatives to bring her back, the Non-applicant not only refused to keep her but also insulted and humiliated the Applicant and her family members. Due to such ill-treatment and neglect, the applicant, who has no 3 independent source of income, belongs to a very poor family of daily wage labourers and also suffered severe physical and mental trauma, including weakness after the birth of a dead child, has been compelled to live with her parents and relatives and is presently residing at Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The non-applicant has neither made any arrangement for the Applicant’s maintenance nor shown any concern for her well- being, despite being a government servant earning about Rs.45,400/- per month as salary and approximately Rs.40,000/- per month from tuition, besides income from agricultural land and ownership of a residential house bearing LIG No. 44 at Paraskol, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and therefore the Applicant was constrained to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month; however, the Learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), by order dated 22.10.2024, failed to properly appreciate the facts, evidence and the financial condition of the Applicant and erroneously rejected her application, giving rise to the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22/10/2024 passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law, as it has been passed without proper appreciation of the facts, evidence and settled principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant is an unemployed lady having no sufficient or independent source 4 of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the Non- applicant, being the legally wedded husband of the Applicant, whose marriage was solemnized on 05/06/2015 as per social rites and rituals, is a government servant earning about Rs.45,400/- per month as salary and approximately Rs.40,000/- per month from tuition, apart from income from agricultural land and ownership of a residential house bearing LIG No. 44 at Paraskol, District Mahasamund (C.G.). After about one year of marriage, the Non-applicant subjected the Applicant to continuous physical and mental cruelty on the pretext that she had not conceived, abused her by calling her barren and promiscuous, and further developed a love affair with one Sangeeta. The Applicant was also harassed and tortured by the Non-applicant along with his father Sitaram Lahare, mother Budhiyarin Bai, brothers Kanhaiya Lahare and Sadharam Lahare, sister Phuleshwari Lahare and other family members, who taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry, humiliated her for belonging to a poor family and denied her financial support. Further, in the year 2018, when the Applicant became pregnant and required financial assistance for routine medical check-ups and treatment, the Non-applicant deliberately neglected her and did not provide even a single penny, and due to such continuous harassment and neglect, the Applicant unfortunately lost the child in her womb on 04/04/2019. Also, owing to persistent cruelty and ill-treatment by the Non-applicant and his family members, the Applicant was compelled to reside at 5 her parental home, and the Court below failed to consider that she had justifiable reasons to live separately. The Applicant is a poor lady whose father is a daily wage labourer and she has no means to sustain herself, yet the Court below rejected her claim without considering her vulnerable condition. Further, it is well settled by numerous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that a deserted wife who is unable to maintain herself has an absolute right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court below further overlooked the fact that after the Applicant left the matrimonial home, the Non-applicant never made any sincere effort to take her back or to provide for her maintenance, and thus the impugned order rejecting the maintenance application suffers from non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, the applicant (wife) has failed to prove that she has no sufficient reasons to live separately from her husband (respondent). 8. Considering the submissions advanced by 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 6 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal