1 CGHC010096582025 2026:CGHC:35955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 366 of 2025 Smt. Bharati Sonkar W/o Kishore Sonkar Aged About 26 Years D/o Shambhu Sonkar, R/o Om Vihar Colony, House Of Awadhesh Tiwari, Rawatpura, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kishore Sonkar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sonkar Aged About 29 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Durga Chowk, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.C.C. No.23/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent married each other on 30/11/2021, as per Rituals and Customs. Since then, they lived together and after complexions arose they are loving separately due to behavior of respondent. Few days after the marriage between the applicant and respondent, the family of respondent started demanding dowry. The applicant was harassed and dowry was demanded from such PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.14 17:32:58 +0530 2 as instance she was compelled to provide a brand new car and money. The respondent was supposed to reside in Orissa after his marriage but he refused to take applicant along with him rather he enforced that the applicant is brought to his house as a maid of his mother. The applicant informed her family members that she is not taken to Orissa, where her husband was supposed to be residing. The family members of the applicant visited the house of non applicant and after compromise the applicant was taken to Orissa for residing with respondent. When applicant resided with non applicant in Orissa she became pregnant and non applicant informed his family about their child to be born. The mother-in -law of the applicant coerced the non applicant to not take the child and she suggested to endanger the applicant by giving heavy chores of household work and lesser food so that child dies in womb. In result of which the applicant faced miscarriage. When the applicant was seriously ill and she was informed by the doctors that she has faced miscarriage and urgently she requires abortion. The non applicant refused to borne the expenses in Orissa and rather he called the parents of applicant because of which the parents brought the applicant back to Raipur and conducted the abortion of applicant. The non applicant is involved in illicit relations with various other women, he is an habitual drunkard. The applicant tried to explain the non applicant to get rid of such behavior. But in return the non applicant started beating the applicant physically and started using obscene language every day. Being tortured by the cruel behaviour of the respondent the applicant returned to her paternal house on 15.05.2022 and she has no means of earning currently she is dependent upon her parents. The respondent other hand earns Rs. 90,000 per month being a Mechanical Engineer in Tata Company of Orissa. Applicant prayed for Rs. 30,000 /- as maintenance amount to be 3 awarded which should be payable by the respondent. But the learned Family Court, has dismissed the case of the applicant by passing the impugned order. Hence the present revision 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is unemployed and has to maintain herself. She is dependent upon her paternal family members for her livelihood and, therefore, requires financial support from the respondent towards her day-to-day expenses. Learned counsel further submits that, as contemplated under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sufficient and justifiable cause to reside separately from the respondent. She was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of the respondent's demand for dowry and ill-treatment. It is further submitted that the respondent is a habitual drunkard and his conduct has made it unsafe and impracticable for the applicant to reside with him. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in not awarding any amount of maintenance to the applicant, despite the evidence of the witnesses and the documents available on record clearly establishing that the applicant is unable to meet her own expenses. Learned counsel submits that the respondent is employed with Tata Company and is earning a basic salary of approximately Rs.90,000/- per month. Being the husband of the applicant, he is legally and morally bound to maintain her. Therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have awarded at least Rs.30,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has remained unemployed since she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent on account of dowry demands. It is also alleged that the respondent is maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman. Since 15.05.2021, the respondent has failed to 4 discharge any financial responsibility towards the applicant. Learned counsel lastly submits that the applicant has no independent source of income and is facing financial hardship. In such circumstances, the respondent, having sufficient means of livelihood, is liable to pay maintenance to the applicant so as to enable her to meet her basic and necessary expenses. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 6. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti