1 2026:CGHC:235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 880 of 2024 1 - Smt. Purnima @ Manju Yadav W/o Shri Tirathram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years Caste Raut, R/o Bhanpuri, P.S. Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Permanent Resident Of Lakholi, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Mona Yadav D/o Shri Tirathram Yadav, Aged About 21 Years Caste Raut, R/o Bhanpuri, P.S. Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Permanent Resident Of Lakholi, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .. Applicant(s) versus Tirathram Yadav Aged About 40 Years, Occupation Tailoring Work Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Monika Dey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Monika Dey, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 27.03.2024 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants had :led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the Non-applicant. It is an admitted fact that applicant No.1 and the non-applicant solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals about 22 years prior and out of the said wedlock applicant No.2 was born. The applicants have stated in brief that after the marriage, applicant No.1 resided peacefully and happily with the non-applicant at her matrimonial home. However, after some time, the non-applicant and his family members started harassing and subjecting applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty on account of insu=cient dowry, without any justi:able reason and also made attempts to cause her death. Due to continuous harassment and mental torture, applicant No.1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and is presently residing along with applicant No.2 at her parental house. Applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and applicant No.2. The non-applicant is engaged in tailoring work and has 3 su=cient means to provide maintenance. Therefore, the applicants were constrained to :le an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the non-applicant. 4. The non-applicant :led his reply and denied the averments made in the application :led by the applicants. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 27.03.2024, whereby rejected the application of the applicant No.1 on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any su=cient cause she is residing separately and the applicant No.2 has became major, therefore they are not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants most respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh is completely illegal, erroneous, perverse and contrary to the evidence and material available on record, inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and had left her matrimonial home due to continuous physical and mental cruelty in@icted by the non-applicant and thus her separate residence is fully justi:ed, the applicants have no independent source of income and are facing extreme hardship for their survival, whereas the non-applicant is engaged in tailoring work and has su=cient means to maintain the applicants, yet the learned Family Court, without proper application of mind and ignoring the settled principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 4 the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, mechanically rejected the application for maintenance, thereby depriving the applicants of their statutory and legal right to maintenance, which defeats the very object of social justice underlying the provision, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has minutely examined the pleadings, evidence and documents adduced by both the parties and has recorded a categorical :nding that applicant No.1 failed to establish that she was subjected to such cruelty by the non-applicant which would justify her separate residence without su=cient cause. The learned Family Court has further taken into consideration that applicant No.2 has already attained majority and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The :ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and do not suAer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity. 5 10.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 11.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. O=ce is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal