1 2026:CGHC:5622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 918 of 2024 • Smt. Ruchi Sahu W/o Anand Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Door House Proprietor, Behind Sagar Hotel, New Deepak Nagar, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • Anand Kumar Sahu S/o Shyam Sundar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Sahu Timber And Trading Company And Mahamaya Furniture, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Akash Kumar Pansari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.48/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court concerned, stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in on 12.05.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.03 10:51:53 +0530 2 District – Durg (C.G.). After the marriage the applicant and respondent lived for two years thereafter only because of interference of Priyanka, sister of non-applicant the atmosphere of home got deteriorated. The applicant had two miscarriages, once applicant was 6 months pregnant and other when she was 8 months pregnant. On 12.06.2014, a call came from the home of applicant that her father is seriously ill, then she told this situation to non-applicant and after taking consent from her husband and mother in law and on the order of her husband his servant dropped her to Pendra Railway Station and the applicant came to Durg. The Applicant has tried many times and requested to non-applicant and his other family members that she wanted to go back to her in-laws house and please take her back, but none of them were ready to take her back. Ultimately she was forced to file a complaint in police station to take her back to in-laws house, on that complaint police in-charge sent them to counseling centre and even in counseling centre when her in-laws refused to take her with them. On the application seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, the learned family court framed 2 issues,(A) whether the Applicant is living separately from non-applicant due to sufficient and valid reason and (B)whether the Applicant is entitled to maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned family court has passed the judgment and decree against applicant and rejecting her maintenance. The applicant has disclosed all the facts before the learned Family Court concerned. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is having no source of income 3 and the respondent has approx 4000 sq ft and 3 floor showroom in which 9 to 12 workers work there and furniture and goods worth of Rs.50 Lakhs and income of the non-applicant is about 3 lakhs per month but the learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 48/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned 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 criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be 4 transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali