1 2026:CGHC:5533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 869 of 2024 Smt. Sukanti Vishal W/o. Shri Sahdev Vishal Aged About 33 Years R/o. Village Amdala, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Sahdev Vishal S/o. Shri Dhanpat Vishal Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Khutanpara, Rajpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Rajpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj,(C.G.) 2 - Vishal Bhargav S/o. Shri Sahdev Vishal Aged About 12 Years Minor - Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sukanti Vishal R/o. Village - Amdala, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) (At Present Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Shri Sahdev Vishal R/o. Village - Khutanpara, Rajpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Rajpur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj,(C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ram Vifal Ram, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set- aside impugned order dated 01.07.2024 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, as their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 19.05.2005 and one child was born out of the wedlock; after the marriage, the applicant initially lived peacefully at her matrimonial home, but later she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family members on the pretext of dowry, due to which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house; the applicant has no independent source of income, whereas respondent No.1 is working as a Computer Operator in the Forest Department earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month and also has additional income from rental property, yet he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicant, however, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, dismissed the applicant’s maintenance 3 application vide impugned order dated 01.07.2024, which is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law, thereby causing grave hardship to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and has no independent source of income for her survival, yet the Court wrongly presumed income of the applicant and rejected her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is against settled principles of law. The respondent No.1 has himself admitted by way of affidavit that he is working as a Data Entry Operator with Chhattisgarh State Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit and is earning Rs. 37,500/- per month; however, the learned Family Court completely overlooked this admitted income and ignored the respondent’s capacity to maintain the applicant. The Court below also failed to consider that the applicant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to continuous physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent and that she had sufficient and just cause to live separately. It is further submitted that the respondent’s divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been dismissed by the learned Family Court on 01.07.2024 in Civil Suit No. 153-A/2019, which clearly 4 establishes that the marital relationship subsists and the applicant continues to be entitled to maintenance. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, ignores material evidence, and defeats the very object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby causing grave hardship to the applicant, who is struggling for her livelihood. Hence, in the interest of justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to be awarded appropriate maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and the other documents available on record. 6. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned order, it is evident that the applicant/wife Sukanti Vishal has admitted in her cross-examination that her son Bhargav Vishal (respondent No.2) herein is residing with his father (respondent No.1) herein Sahadev Vishal, at Rajpur, and further it is undisputed that the respondent no. 1/husband is maintaining and taking proper care of the child, and as such, respondent No.2 is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, it has been duly found by the Family Court that the applicant Sukanti Vishal has failed to establish any sufficient cause for living separately from husband/respondent No.1 and it is, therefore, barred from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., and 5 additionally, she has been found capable of maintaining herself, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is just, proper and warrants no interference. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav