1 CGHC010194962024 2026:CGHC:32999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 613 of 2024 Smt. Pratima Yadav W/o Ravi Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Daniya, Police Station and Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.), At Present R/o Nayapara, Balod, Mammi Sanan, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ravi Yadav S/o Shobharam Yadav, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Manki, Police Station - Pinkapar, Tahsil - Devri, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Divyansh Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present 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 24.04.2024 and allow maintenance in ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.31 16:19:20 +0530 2 favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was pleaded therein that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2018. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home and discharged her matrimonial obligations. However, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry and was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home and left at her parental house. Since then, the applicant has been residing with her parents and has no independent source of income. It was further pleaded that the respondent is employed as a Peon in the Women and Child Development Department, Balod, and is drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 18,000/-. It was also alleged that he owns agricultural land from which he earns approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent has failed to provide any maintenance to the applicant. Accordingly, she filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. 4. Upon service of notice, the respondent filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application. It was contended that the applicant has been residing separately without any reasonable cause and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance. Accordingly, dismissal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was prayed for. 5. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the applicant was residing separately from the respondent 3 without any reasonable cause. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous in law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, on account of the assault and cruelty inflicted by the respondent, the applicant had lodged a complaint before the police. However, the respondent subsequently persuaded the applicant to enter into a compromise. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has no independent source of income and, being a woman, is unable to maintain herself in the present social and economic circumstances. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent for sufficient and reasonable cause. He submits that the learned Family Court erred in holding that the applicant is residing separately without any reasonable cause and, on that basis, wrongly denied her claim for maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income. Therefore, she is legally entitled to claim maintenance for her livelihood. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent subjected the applicant to cruelty on account of demand for dowry and ultimately drove her out of her matrimonial home, compelling her to reside separately. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is employed as a Peon in the Women and Child Development Department, Balod, and is drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 18,000/-. It was also brought on record that he owns agricultural land from which he earns approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum. Despite having sufficient means, he has deliberately neglected and refused to maintain the 4 applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is entitled to maintenance commensurate with the standard of living enjoyed by the respondent. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant is living separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek