1 2026:CGHC:5542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 655 of 2024 Smt. Rekha Yadav W/o Bhagwati Yadav, D/o Sunder Lal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Guma, Post Tendua, Via Tatibandh,urla, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Bhagwati Yadav S/o Ramswaroop Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony ,naresh Kirana Stores, Danganiya, Deendayal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. C.J.K.Rao, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant, being aggrieved with the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 445/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage between the present applicant and the non-applicant/husband was solemnized on 24.11.2016 at Village Guma, Raipur, as per Hindu rites and rituals. The case of the applicant is that after about six months of marriage, the non-applicant/husband and his family members started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment in connection with dowry demands and demanded a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is alleged that since the non- applicant/husband remained outside the house due to his job, his father and brother harassed the applicant physically and threatened to kill her. It is further alleged that the family members forcibly subjected the applicant to medical procedures so that she could not conceive and thereafter sent her to her parental home. The applicant also lodged a report under Sections 498-A and 376 of the IPC. The applicant has no independent source of income, whereas the non-applicant/husband is employed at the Police Headquarters as Subedar (M) and earns a salary of more than Rs. 45,000/- per month. The applicant claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 4. The reply filed by the non-applicant/husband denied all allegations and contended that his family members have been falsely implicated and that the applicant used to quarrel with them and he prayed for rejection of the application. 5. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and 3 material available on record, passed the order dated 23.04.2022, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the applicant, however, by final order dated 20.05.2024, the Family Court held that since the non-applicant/husband and his family members had been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 506, 323, and 376(2)(k)(n) IPC and the applicant failed to prove cruelty and dowry harassment, she was not entitled to maintenance, and accordingly dismissed her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance with the Court’s order dated 13.12.2024, mediation proceedings between the parties are pending before the Mediation Centre of this Court. As per the mediation report dated 06.01.2025, both the applicant and the non-applicant/husband appeared before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. During mediation, the non-applicant/husband expressed his willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the applicant, subject to withdrawal of all pending cases; however, the applicant refused the said proposal and insisted upon monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. Consequently, the mediation proceedings failed and the dispute remains unresolved. He further submits that the learned Family Court has misconceived both the law and the facts while dismissing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the expression “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. includes a divorced woman who has not remarried, and 4 therefore, merely because a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide order dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure A/3), the applicant could not have been denied maintenance. It is further argued that even if the divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty, the same does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly when she is unable to maintain herself and the husband, despite having sufÏcient means, has neglected and refused to maintain her. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 13.12.2024, the parties were appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court to amicably settle their dispute, but as per the Mediation Report dated 06.01.2025, the dispute could not be settled between the parties and the mediation was failed. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and recorded a categorical finding that the 5 applicant/wife failed to establish sufÏcient cause for residing separately from the non-applicant/husband. The findings further reveal that the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment were not proved and the non-applicant/husband and his family members were acquitted of the criminal charges, which materially weakened the case of the applicant. The learned Family Court, after considering all relevant aspects, rightly concluded that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she was living separately without justifiable reason. The conclusions drawn by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 concerned. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal