1 2026:CGHC:5619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 990 of 2024 • Smt. Sushila Bai W/o Mahesh Aged About 49 Years D/o Abheram, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kukda, Post- Borsi, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • Mahesh S/o Gotilal Aged About 51 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Sambalpuri, Post-Hirri, Tehsil And Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. SAH Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Samiksha Verma, 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 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in MJC No.186/2023, 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 25 years ago as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at village- VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.03 10:51:54 +0530 2 Kukda (C.G.). After the marriage applicant was living in the house of the non-applicant in village Sambalpuri, due to non-applicant beating and quarreling with her, applicant went to her maternal home and since then she is living separately from the non-applicant. The applicant has also married her daughter alone and now, applicant is unable to do manual labour at present, so she is unable to maintain herself. 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 and the non-applicant has agricultural land in addition to Khasra No.84/2 area 0.3140 hectare in the village, which givens an annual income of Rs.1,00,000/- and currently works as a painter, from which he earns an income of Rs.15,000/-, 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 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in M.J.C No.186/2023, 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 3 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 transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali