1 CGHC010073112025 2026:CGHC:34573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 284 of 2025 Anindita Sinha Bhatta W/o Shri Rakesh Bhatta Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 15 Badansingh Mohalla Manendragarh Post O)ce Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh District - M.C.B. (C.G.) (Non - Applicant) ... Applicant versus Rakesh Kumar Bhatta S/o Late Ramchandra Bhatta Aged About 36 Years R/o Hemunagar Mini Bakery Road Post O)ce Bilaspur Police Station Bilaspur Tahsil Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Applicant) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: “(1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case for it's kind ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.07 16:24:32 +0530 2 perusal; (ii) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Judge Family Court Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 230/2023 and respondent may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25000/- per month for maintenance to the petitioner(the applicant) in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2023, the applicant <led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 230/2023. The case of the applicant, in substance, is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 17.01.2023. After the marriage, when the applican treached her matrimonial home along with her sister, within 4–5 hours of her arrival, the sister-in-law of the applicant started harassing her over trivial issues relating to the marriage ceremony. On 24.01.2023, when the applicant was going to her parental home for the Pagphera ceremony, her mother-in-law, in the presence of relatives, alleged that the applicant’s family members practiced witchcraft (जादूटोना) and further warned that if the applicant brought any sacred thread or amulet (ताबीज) from her parental home, she would not be permitted to enter the matrimonial house. After 30.04.2023, when the applicant returned from her parental home to her matrimonial home, her in-laws started harassing her by demanding dowry. At the instigation of the applicant’s mother-in- law, the respondent abused the applicant in <lthy language and assaulted her on several occasions. Since the marriage between the 3 applicant and the respondent was solemnized at Bilaspur, the respondent obtained a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the applicant’s father for purchasing furniture. However, the respondent neither purchased the furniture nor returned the amount. It is further submitted that all the ornaments belonging to the applicant were taken into the custody of her mother-in-law. The respondent used to return home late at night in an intoxicated condition and physically assaulted the applicant. The respondent also used to suspect the applicant’s character, regularly checked her mobile phone, and threatened to kill her. The applicant’s in-laws did not permit her to communicate with her parents over the phone. Being unable to bear the continuous harassment, the applicant returned to her parental home along with her father on 17.09.2023. It is further submitted that on 20.09.2023, the applicant’s in-laws lodged a false complaint at Police Station Bilaspur (C.G.), falsely alleging that the applicant had stolen Rs. 50,000/- from the matrimonial home. On 04.11.2023, the applicant lodged a written complaint before Police Station City Kotwali, Manendragarh, regarding the harassment and cruelty meted out to her by her in-laws. 4. The respondent <led his written reply denying all the allegations made by the applicant except the factum of marriage and opposed the application <led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. By order dated 12.06.2024, the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), in C.I.S./Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 230/2023, rejected the application <led by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, and bad in the eyes of law. She submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 without properly appreciating and considering the material available on record. She submits that the respondent subjected the applicant to cruelty by demanding dowry, abusing her in <lthy language, and physically assaulting her while under the inOuence of alcohol. The applicant’s in-laws lodged a false complaint before the Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.), falsely alleging that the applicant had taken away Rs. 50,000/- from her matrimonial home. She further submits that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record to establish that the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his family members. The respondent is employed as a Ticket Checker (T.C.) in the Indian Railways and is drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 50,000/-, after all deductions. Therefore, the maintenance amount sought by the applicant in her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be granted. 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. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application <led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that the applicant had failed to establish any su)cient or reasonable cause for residing separately from the respondent. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 parties and perusing the impugned order and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity 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