1 CGHC010449402024 2026:CGHC:32987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 63 of 2025 Smt. Nomita Chauhan W/o Shri Deepak Chauhan Aged About 32 Years Caste Chauhan R/o Village Kasaipali Police Chauki Jobi Polic Station Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Kikirada Police Station Birra District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Deepak Chauhan S/o Shri Shiv Lal Aged About 34 Years Caste Chauhan R/o Village Kasaipali Police Station Jobi, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision and Quash/Set- aside the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court Janjgir, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 439/2023 and an order may also be passed in favor of the petitioner for appropriate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 mainatnance amount, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 17.05.2019 at Village Kikirada, Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her matrimonial home and thereafter accompanied the respondent to Raigarh, where he was posted in connection with his employment. According to the petitioner, after some time of marriage, the respondent, along with his parents and brother, started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. It was further alleged that during their stay at Raigarh, the respondent developed a habit of consuming liquor, started doubting the character of the petitioner and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioner started residing at her parental house. It is the case of the petitioner that despite several efforts and attempts made by her to resume matrimonial life and live with the respondent, he refused to keep her with him and neglected to maintain her. Consequently, in November, 2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply denying the allegations levelled by the petitioner. Thereafter, both parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on 3 record and after hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 28.09.2024, rejected the petitioner’s application for maintenance on the ground that she was residing separately from the respondent without sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir- Champa, is contrary to law, facts and the evidence available on record and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material placed before it and rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without assigning cogent and sustainable reasons. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that after a brief period of cordial matrimonial life, the respondent and his family members subjected the petitioner to physical and mental cruelty in connection with unlawful demands for dowry and ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. It is also submitted that during their stay at Raigarh, the respondent developed a habit of consuming liquor, raised unfounded allegations regarding the character of the petitioner and treated her with cruelty, thereby providing sufficient cause for the petitioner to reside separately. He contends that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not residing separately without justification and that her separate residence was the direct consequence of the conduct of the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is gainfully 4 employed and earns a regular salary, apart from having income from agricultural land, and is therefore possessed of sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. He submits that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that a wife who is unable to maintain herself receives financial support from her husband. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court deserve to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to grant of reasonable maintenance from the respondent. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court has meticulously examined the allegations made by the petitioner regarding cruelty, dowry demand and neglect, as well as the defence raised by the respondent, and has recorded its findings on the basis of a proper appreciation of the evidence. The Court has taken into account the circumstances 5 under which the parties started residing separately and, upon evaluation of the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for living separately from the respondent so as to entitle her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has also considered the testimony of the witnesses and the documents exhibited by both sides and has assigned cogent, plausible and legally sustainable reasons while rejecting the claim for maintenance. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order appears to have been passed in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence available on record. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan