1 2026:CGHC:5813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 882 of 2024 Phul Kumari W/o Jawara Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chungadhi, P.S. Bhatgaon, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jawara Lal S/o Late Prahaldaar Aged About 35 Years R/o Shyamnagar (Tamor), P.S. Bhatgaon, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C No.60/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance application of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant has filed M.Cr.C. No. 60/2022 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court, Surajpur. The applicant was married to the respondent/respondent about 11 years ago, in the month of April, according to Hindu rites and rituals. After two years of marriage, the applicant gave birth to a daughter named Laxmi, who is presently about 9 years old. Thereafter, she gave birth to two sons at PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.04 12:40:33 +0530 2 intervals of approximately three years, who are presently aged about 6 years and 3 years respectively. The applicant and the respondent lived happily for about 7 to 8 years in the residential house of the respondent at Shyamnagar. Subsequently, the applicant fell ill and went for a routine medical check-up, during which she was diagnosed with an ulcer. Thereafter, the behavior of the respondent suddenly changed, and he began quarreling with the applicant over trivial matters. Being distressed by the repeated quarrels and harassment, the applicant lodged a police report at Police Station Bhatgaon. The police summoned the respondent to the police station, reprimanded him, and advised him to take proper care of the applicant and keep her with him. Although the respondent initially kept the applicant well for about two months, he again started quarreling with her and thereafter filed a false complaint against the applicant before the Family Counseling Centre, where he was once again advised to keep the applicant with him. 3. Thereafter, the respondent took the applicant to her maternal village Chunagadhi on the pretext of obtaining Ayurvedic treatment for her illness. After three days, he asked the applicant to go to Darraghat for further treatment; however, the respondent did not accompany her. Consequently, the applicant, along with her brother, consulted a Vaidya (Ayurvedic doctor) at Darraghat for treatment. After about ten days, the respondent came to Darraghat and forcibly took away the applicant’s youngest son, Kartik, from her lap. After undergoing treatment for about one and a half months, the applicant returned to her matrimonial home at Shyamnagar. However, she was turned out by her mother-in-law, who stated that they would not bear the expenses of her treatment and that if the applicant died, the respondent would remarry. The applicant requested that she be allowed to keep her youngest son, Kartik, but her 3 mother-in-law refused, stating that the child was not hers and that she could give birth to another child, and further declared that none of the children would be given to her. Consequently, the applicant was forcibly sent away along with her mother and brother, and since then she has been residing at her parental home in Chunagadhi. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, arbitrary, and contrary to law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has erred in law by not properly exercising the jurisdiction vested in it while allowing the application for maintenance filed by the applicant. The learned Family Court has erred in holding that the respondent is working as a mason, owns agricultural land measuring 15 acres in his name, and earns an income of Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, without there being any cogent evidence on record to substantiate such findings. The learned Family Court failed to take into proper consideration the material and evidence available on record, particularly the fact that the applicant is frequently ill and is unable to maintain herself. It is a fundamental principle of social justice and the moral as well as legal duty of the respondent to maintain his wife. The learned Family Court has committed a gross irregularity by not properly assessing the income of the respondent and his actual capacity to provide maintenance to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned 4 Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified copy of the this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti