1 2026:CGHC:25170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 738 of 2026 Smt. Chandrakala Sahu W/o Ruplal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pandaripani (Amlidipa) P.S. Bhupdevpur Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. At Present R/o Saraibhaddar Chowki Jutmil Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. ... Applicant versus Ruplal Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 33 Years Occupation Computer Operator R/o Village Pandaripani (Amlidipa) P.S. Bhupdevpur Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 and grant the maintenance to applicant from the respondent/husband, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Pandripani, District Raigarh, and out of the said wedlock two sons were born. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, whereupon the applicant started residing separately from the respondent and filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, alleging cruelty, dowry demand and neglect on the part of the respondent. The respondent contested the claim by denying the allegations and contending that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause, while both minor children were residing with him and their educational and maintenance expenses were being borne by him. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court recorded a finding that the applicant had failed to establish that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to any act or omission on the part of the respondent and that she was residing separately of her own volition without sufficient cause. The learned Family Court further found that the applicant was capable of maintaining herself, having previously worked as a security guard, and accordingly dismissed the application for maintenance vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the applicant has no independent source of income sufficient for her maintenance and is unable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the applicant was constrained to reside separately due to the cruel conduct of the respondent, including demands for dowry and physical as well as mental harassment, and therefore she has sufficient cause to live apart from her husband. He submits that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the applicant despite having sufficient means, whereas the applicant is facing financial hardship, particularly in view of the rising cost of living. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and suitable maintenance be awarded in favour of the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the material available on record, has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court recorded a categorical finding that the applicant failed to establish that she was subjected to cruelty, dowry demand, or any such circumstances which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. On the contrary, the evidence on record revealed that the applicant 4 was residing separately from the respondent of her own volition and without any sufficient cause. The learned Family Court further took note of the fact that both minor children were residing with the respondent and their educational as well as maintenance expenses were being borne by him. It was also found that the applicant had previously been employed as a security guard and was capable of maintaining herself. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan