1 2026:CGHC:5530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 887 of 2024 Madhuri Sahu W/o Shri Rambali Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bachhera Ps City Kotwali Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Rambali Sahu S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bachhera Ps City Kotwali Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. Heard Shri Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2024, passed by learned Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.132/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.02.02 17:26:58 +0530 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was married to the non-applicant according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.04.2022. The applicant alleges that after marriage, the non-applicant subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home in September 2022, since when she has been residing at her parental home. The applicant claims that the non-applicant is engaged in contracting work, earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month, and is also the owner of five acres of double-crop agricultural land, yielding substantial annual income. On this basis, she sought maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicant admitted the fact of marriage but denied all allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. He contended that the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home, refused to live with him, and is residing at her parental house of her own free will. After considering the facts and evidence, learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 whereby dismissed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.07.2024, passed by the learned Family Court, is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record and therefore the same deserves to be set aside and maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month be granted in favour of the applicant. He would submit that the learned Family Court has ignored the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., despite the fact that the applicant is residing separately for sufficient and justified reasons. He would submit that the learned family Court failed to consider that 3 the respondent/non-applicant has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights, which clearly shows that the respondent is not interested in resuming cohabitation or maintaining a happy marital life. He would submit that the learned Family Court ignored the salary certificate filed by the applicant, which establishes that the respondent/non-applicant is earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. He would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it stands duly proved that the applicant is residing separately for sufficient cause. The reply filed by the respondent/non- applicant does not specifically deny the averments made in the application, and the learned Family Court also failed to properly apply the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order. He would submit that considering the income and financial capacity of the respondent/husband, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable and adequate amount of maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 05/07/2024 after due and proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. The learned family Court has found that the applicant has failed to prove that she is residing separately from the non-applicant on account of dowry harassment or cruel conduct and the applicant has also failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that she has sufficient and justified cause to live separately from the non-applicant, in the absence of proof of sufficient cause for separate 4 residence, the applicant was not entitled to claim maintenance from the non-applicant and the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed. The impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri