1 CGHC010007132025 2026:CGHC:32992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 29 of 2025 Muskan Parvin W/o Munajir Ali Aged About 22 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Munajir Ali S/o Asgar Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Lakhanpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 15/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was alleged in the application that that respondent herein was married with the applicant on 16.02.2021 as per their caste and custom. After After marriage of 15 days, the respondent and his family members were demanding dowry and the applicant wife was mentally and physically harassed by them however, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 at the time of marriage, the applicant's family has already given case amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 6,00,000/-, 10,000,00/- inspite of that the respondent and his family started assault and using filthy languages with her and from the month of June 2021, the respondent has stopped to perform matrimonial obligation with his wife. Not only this, when the applicant wife has not fulfilled their demand to bring one Creta Car then they tried to ablaze the applicant wife by procuring kerosene Oil. The incident was informed by the applicant to her parents and they have tried to understand the respondent but respondent has continuously harassed the applicant. On 01.10.2021, the respondent has left the applicant in her matrimonial house and since then she is residing at matrimonial house. The respondent husband is working as Medical Supervisor and he is posted in Adani Company and he is getting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The applicant wife is source of not having any to income and she is unable maintenance herself. Hence she has filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was being ill treated and mentally 3 harassed by the respondent, which made the applicant to live separately from the respondent and the same is sufficient ground for a wife to live separately. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar