1 2026:CGHC:927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 52 of 2023 Bhojkumari Patel W/o Vijay Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dongripali, Police Station Jagdalpur, District Bargarh (Odisha), Presently R/o At Her Parental Village Bhawarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Gajanand Patel S/o Shri Yajilal Patel R/o Village Dongripali, Police Station Jagdalpur, District - Bargarh (Odisha) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set- aside the order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 90/2021 and further be pleased to pass the order of maintenance in favour of the applicant from the date of &ling of claim application, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the brief facts of the case, the applicant 8led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, alleging that her marriage with the non-applicant was solemnized in accordance with the caste customs prevailing between the parties. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters, namely Fadina Patel, born in the year 2007, and Ku. Soni Patel, born in the year 2010. It is an undisputed fact that both the daughters are residing with the non-applicant, who is a government teacher. As per the averments made in the maintenance application, the applicant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the non-applicant on the ground that no male child was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that on this ground the applicant was ill-treated and continuously tortured by the non- applicant on one pretext or another. 3. The non-applicant 8led his reply denying the allegations and pleaded that no speci8c date or instance of alleged assault was mentioned in the application. It was further submitted that the applicant resided with the non-applicant and his family for about 14 years and that false and baseless allegations of cruelty and assault have been levelled against the non-applicant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 23.09.2022, whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any su@cient cause she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and the facts available on record, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant, in her deposition, categorically stated that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the non- applicant, and her testimony remained unrebutted even during cross-examination. The applicant also examined her brother as A.W.-2, who fully corroborated her version by deposing that the applicant was ill-treated by the non-applicant; however, the learned Family Court illegally discarded his testimony without assigning cogent reasons. He further submits that the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court that the applicant is residing separately without su@cient cause is perverse and unsustainable in law, especially when the non-applicant himself admitted that the applicant went to Police Station Basna after leaving the matrimonial home. Despite such admission, the learned Family Court erroneously observed that no document was produced to show that the applicant had reported the matter to the police. It is also submitted that the non-applicant admittedly did not 8le any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which clearly demonstrates that the applicant had just and reasonable cause to live separately. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justi8able or su@cient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well-reasoned, lawful, and justi8ed conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned order, I do not 8nd any illegality or in8rmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. O@ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal