1 2026:CGHC:25632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 755 of 2026 1 - Smt. Bharti Verma W/o Mukesh Verma Aged About 29 Years Presently R/o At Through Father Shri Sheetal Verma, R/o Village Devbaloda, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Sanchi Verma D/o Mukesh Verma Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through Mohter Smt. Bharti Verma, W/o Mukesh Verma, Presently R/o At Through Father Shri Sheetal Verma, R/o Village Devbaloda, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Purav Verma S/o Mukesh Verma Aged About 5 Years Presently R/o At Through Father Shri Sheetal Verma, R/o Village Devbaloda, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Mukesh Verma S/o Late Cherkuram Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Gond Pendri, Tehsil Patan And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Pin 491107. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 15.04.2026 passed by the Learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case no. 567/2021 and grant the maintenance to the tune of Rs 35,000/- in favour of present applicants payable by non- applicant herein from the date of application moved before the Learned Family Court, Durg, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 19.05.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Gondpendri, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, and out of the said wedlock two children were born, who are presently residing with applicant No.1. It is the case of the applicants that after a few months of cordial matrimonial life, the respondent started subjecting applicant No.1 to physical and mental cruelty, frequently quarrelling with her, doubting her character, demanding dowry and consuming alcohol. The respondent, who is serving as a Constable in the Police Department, allegedly continued to harass the applicant and, on several occasions, assaulted her. It is further alleged that in May, 2020, the respondent removed household articles from the rented accommodation at Bhilai-3 without informing the applicant and thereafter, in August, 2020, drove her and the children out of the matrimonial home, compelling her to lodge a complaint, pursuant to which FIR No.46/2020 was registered against the respondent under Section 498-A IPC at Mahila Thana, Durg. Since then, applicant No.1 has been residing separately along with her children at her parental home and has no independent source of income, whereas 3 the respondent is a government servant earning a regular salary and also possesses agricultural property. Consequently, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the two children but declined maintenance to applicant No.1 on the ground that she failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately from the respondent. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to applicant No.1, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice insofar as maintenance to applicant No.1 has been denied. It is contended that the marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent is admitted and undisputed, and the parties have lived together for more than ten years and are blessed with two children. Learned counsel submits that applicant No.1 was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by the respondent, who frequently doubted her character and harassed her on account of unfounded suspicions, ultimately compelling her to reside separately. It is argued that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that no woman would voluntarily leave her matrimonial home and disrupt her family life after such a long marital relationship without sufficient cause. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent himself compelled applicant No.1 to leave the matrimonial home and that an FIR under Section 498-A 4 IPC was registered against him on the complaint of applicant No.1, which clearly demonstrates the existence of matrimonial cruelty and constitutes a justifiable ground for living separately. It is also submitted that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is presently residing with her parents along with the children, whereas the respondent is employed as a Constable in the Police Department and has sufficient means to maintain his wife. Despite the respondent’s admitted income and legal obligation to maintain his spouse, the learned Family Court erroneously presumed that applicant No.1 was residing separately without sufficient reason and consequently denied her maintenance. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles governing maintenance and have caused serious prejudice to applicant No.1, who continues to remain dependent upon her parental family for her livelihood. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order to the extent it denies maintenance to applicant No.1 be set aside and appropriate maintenance be awarded in her favour. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 on record and the material available before it, has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated that although the marital relationship between applicant No.1 and 5 the respondent stands admitted and maintenance has been awarded to the minor children, applicant No.1 failed to establish by cogent and convincing evidence that she was residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and justifiable cause as contemplated under law. The learned Court has duly examined the rival submissions and the evidence led by the parties and, upon such appreciation, recorded a finding that applicant No.1 was not entitled to maintenance. At the same time, considering the responsibility of the respondent towards his minor children, the learned Family Court appropriately awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each child. The findings recorded by the learned Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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