1 CGHC010398422024 2026:CGHC:32996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1269 of 2024 Smt. Sushma Koshley W/o Chandrabhan Koshley Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barejha Damapur, Post Dullapur, P.S And Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address- Ward No.2 Near Maa Bharti School Nagar Panchayat Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus Chandrabhan Koshley S/o Tulairam Koshley Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Barejha Damapur, Post Dullapur, P.S . Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdam (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /07/2026 1. Though an application for adjustment has been filed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, since the matter has already been posted, the said AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 adjustment cannot be taken on record. Shri Ritesh Verma, learned counsel, has also entered appearance and has been heard. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.313/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 13.07.2021 at Village Lormi according to Hindu rites and customs. After residing together for a few months, the respondent and his family members allegedly subjected the applicant to physical and mental cruelty and demanded a motorcycle, car and gold and silver ornaments as dowry, ultimately forcing her to leave the matrimonial home within six months of the marriage. Since then, she has been residing with her parents and is dependent upon them for her livelihood. She filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, seeking maintenance in M.J.C. No. 313/2023. The respondent denied the allegations, contending that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was employed as a Guest Lecturer earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, while admitting that he is a practicing Advocate. The learned 3 Family Court, by the impugned order, rejected the applicant's claim for maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law, facts and the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has improperly appreciated the pleadings and evidence, ignored material contradictions and omissions, and erroneously rejected the applicant's claim for maintenance. He further submits that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is entitled to maintenance and to live according to the status of her husband. She is presently residing with and dependent upon her aged parents, whereas the respondent, a practicing Advocate engaged in agricultural and fishery business, has sufficient financial capacity to maintain her. He also submits that the learned Family Court wrongly held that she was capable of maintaining herself merely because she was working as a Guest Lecturer, despite such employment being temporary in nature. It is further contended that the Court below failed to frame proper issues and erroneously accepted the respondent's plea that the applicant had refused to reside with him without sufficient cause, thereby illegally rejecting her claim for maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant holding that the applicant failed to establish that she was living separately from the respondent for a justifiable reason, as the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty remained unsubstantiated by any independent or documentary evidence. The Family Court further held that the evidence indicated that the respondent had made efforts to bring the applicant back to the matrimonial home, whereas she declined to resume cohabitation. It was also found that the applicant was working as a Guest Lecturer in a Government College and earning approximately Rs.31,000/- per month, thereby being capable of maintaining herself. On these findings, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant's claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil