1 CGHC010381372024 2026:CGHC:32998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1212 of 2024 Tonika Sahu W/o Damendra Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o - Shraddhanagar Amatalab Road Dhamtari Present R/o Gokulpur Ward Karma Nagar, P.S. City Kotwali Dhamtari, Tehsil and District - Dhamtari, C.G. ... Applicant versus Damendra Kumar Sahu S/o Thakurram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o - Shraddhanagr Amatalab Road Dhamtari P.S. City Kotwali Dhamtari, Tehsil and District - Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.135/2023, whereby the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Family Court. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2020 in accordance with the customs and rituals of their society. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.31 15:10:30 +0530 2 The applicant alleged that immediately after the marriage, on 10.12.2020, the respondent demanded dowry before permitting her entry into the matrimonial home and insisted that her father provide the same. Consequently, her father provided household articles, a two-wheeler, gifts, and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Despite this, the respondent and his family remained dissatisfied and further demanded a four-wheeler as dowry. It was further alleged that from the very first day of marriage, the respondent, along with his parents, sister, and brother-in-law, subjected the applicant to cruelty by taunting her for belonging to a poor family and for allegedly bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent's family thereafter demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and threatened to drive her out of the matrimonial home if the demand was not fulfilled. The applicant also alleged that the respondent refused to establish a marital relationship with her and, despite her repeated requests and suggestion to seek medical treatment, failed to take any steps, thereby depriving her of marital companionship. It was further averred that the applicant was subjected to continuous verbal, physical, and mental cruelty. The respondent frequently returned home in an intoxicated condition, physically assaulted her, demanded money, threatened to expel her from the matrimonial home, accused her of infidelity, threatened to kill her, and even made attempts to endanger her life. The applicant further submitted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, when her health deteriorated, the respondent and his family neither cared for nor supported her and instead subjected her to humiliation and mental harassment. It was further alleged that since 10.05.2023, the respondent has deserted the applicant without any justifiable cause. According to the applicant, the respondent is gainfully employed with an NGO and also earns substantial income from agricultural land and rental properties, whereas the applicant is a 3 homemaker with no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon her parents for her livelihood. 3. The respondent filed his reply denying all the allegations made by the applicant. It was contended that, at the time of marriage, it was mutually understood that the respondent would bear the expenses of the applicant's further education and that no dowry was ever demanded, although certain customary gifts were voluntarily given by the applicant's father. The respondent further asserted that he made sincere efforts to establish a matrimonial relationship, but the applicant refused, citing headaches and fatigue. He also claimed that he arranged medical treatment for her, however, she remained unwilling to cohabit and was more interested in pursuing her studies, which ultimately led to frequent disputes between the parties. After considering the pleadings and material placed on record by both parties, the learned Court below rejected the applicant's claim for maintenance, holding that she had failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately from the respondent- husband and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and statements of the parties, which clearly disclose that the applicant was subjected to cruelty and harassment, leaving her with no option but to leave the matrimonial home. By the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2024, the learned Court rejected the applicant's application for maintenance. The impugned order is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, suffers from legal infirmities, and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material available on record demonstrating that the applicant was subjected to continuous mental and 4 physical cruelty by the respondent and his family. The evidence regarding persistent dowry demands, verbal abuse, harassment, and threats to her life clearly established sufficient cause for the applicant to reside separately from the respondent, as contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Family Court further erred in overlooking the respondent's continuous threats and acts of cruelty, which endangered the applicant's safety, dignity, and mental well-being. Such conduct constituted a justifiable ground for the applicant to live separately and claim maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a homemaker with no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon her elderly parents for her livelihood, whereas the respondent is legally bound to maintain his wife in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The rejection of the applicant's claim for maintenance despite her inability to maintain herself is contrary to the object and spirit of the provision has acted in disregard of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, wherein the principles governing the grant of maintenance and the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife have been authoritatively settled. The impugned order is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, suffers from non-appreciation of material evidence, and is arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the true scope, object, and spirit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which is a beneficial social welfare provision enacted to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 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 documents and evidence 5 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, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that in order to claim maintenance, it must first be established that the wife is living separately from her husband for sufficient and reasonable cause. In the present case, the applicant has failed to establish that she is residing separately from the respondent for any sufficient or justifiable reason. In such circumstances, the grounds assigned by the applicant for living separately from the respondent cannot be said to be sufficient or reasonable. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti