1 2026:CGHC:5773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1199 of 2024 Smt. Sonamati W/o Shri Balram Suryavanshi, Aged About 22 Years R/o Aamgaon, P.S. And Tehsil- Ramanujnagar, District-Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Balram Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Late Shri Dulare, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village-Premnagar (Podi), West Chirimiri (Chitajhor), P.S.-Podi, Tahsil- Chirmiri, District-M.C.B. (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 24/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that Applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent. The marriage was solemnized on 04-06-2023. Applicant was married to one "Purnima" on 03-03-2013 and two children were borne out from such wedlock but he separated from "Purnima" taking RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 divorce on 19-04-2023 consent. Thereafter, marriage by mutual was solemnized on 04-06-2023. The Applicant used to reside with her husband just after the marriage. The respondent used to abuse, assault and quarrel with the Applicant after some times of marriage but she tried to pacify the issue. The respondent was in contact with "Purnima". The respondent assaulted her and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. The respondent used to reside with "Purnima" in the same house. Having no other option, the Applicant returned back to her paternal home at village "Aamgaon", P.S. & Tah. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) and has been there since then. 4. Parents and guardians of the Applicant also tried to settle the issue but the respondent was not ready to keep the Applicant as wife. The Applicant has no means for her livelihood where as the respondent is doing business of clothes and used to earn about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and he has five acres of agriculture land there from used to earn 04-05 lacs per year. In this way, the Applicant is unable to maintain herself and the respondent is earning member and being so, he is in a position to maintain the applicant. The Applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC against the respondent in the month of January 2024. 5. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed 3 by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 6. 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 applicant was being ill treated and physically and mentally harassed by the respondent, which made the applicant to live separately from the respondent and the same is sufficient ground for a wife to live separately. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 7. 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 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 24/2024, 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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. 4 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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 Rajshekhar