1 2026:CGHC:7886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 428 of 2024 Smt. Ganga Nirala W/o Shri Omprakash Nirala Aged About 35 Years R/o Amalibhauna (Indira Awas) Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Omprakash Nirala S/o Chandram Nirala Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Daukijor, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattigarh Presently Working As Catering Work In J. P. Hotel Tyohari, P.S. Tyohari, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, 2 Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F- 131/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent. It is admitted that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 07.10.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. A copy of the marriage card was filed before the Court in support of the marriage. The applicant alleged that after marriage, she resided with the respondent at her matrimonial home, but after some time, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of dowry demands. It is stated that on 17.11.2020, the respondent left her and went to Shahdol. Thereafter, he allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- for digging a borewell, and upon her refusal, he assaulted her and again left for Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. The applicant lodged a complaint at Police Chowki Jutmil, and though a compromise was arrived at, the respondent allegedly continued to ill-treat and assault her, causing injuries for which she underwent treatment at Sarangarh Hospital. Due to continued harassment, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. The applicant contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a mason 3 and also undertakes catering contracts, earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent neglected to maintain her, compelling her to file the maintenance application. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application. After recording evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 19.03.2024, dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence and material available on record. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without assigning just and reasonable grounds, thereby passing an unsustainable order. He further submits that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance in accordance with law. The applicant left her matrimonial home due to physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent. Despite the same, the learned Family Court failed to consider that she was compelled to reside separately for sufficient cause and wrongly rejected her claim for maintenance. He also submits that the applicant has no independent source of income and is facing serious hardship in maintaining herself, whereas the respondent is earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per 4 month by working as a mason and undertaking catering contracts. The respondent is financially capable of maintaining the applicant, but the learned Court ignored this aspect and erroneously dismissed the application. He later submits that the learned Family Court did not properly apply its judicial mind and failed to consider the provisions of law and the material on record. The impugned order, being contrary to settled principles governing maintenance, deserves to be set-aside and appropriate maintenance be awarded to the applicant in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant, holding that the applicant failed to establish any justifiable ground for residing separately from the respondent and also failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty, demand of Rs.50,000/-, assault, or the respondent’s alleged relationship with another woman. The Court further observed that no documentary evidence was produced in support of the complaints 5 allegedly made to the police and the evidence on record indicated that the applicant is residing in a house allotted under the Indira Awas Scheme and is running a small garment shop. Relying upon the settled legal position that a wife who leaves in matrimonial home without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance and accordingly dismissed the application. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil