1 CGHC010172012025 2026:CGHC:35601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 603 of 2025 Smt. Prabha Gupta @ Prabha Soni W/o Shri Mukesh Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o- Namanakala, (Near Polytechnic College) Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta S/o Prakash Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Gopalpur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant 7led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month before ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.13 12:46:41 +0530 2 the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, pleading, inter alia, that their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was further pleaded that, after two years of marriage, the respondent demanded dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and, on account of the said demand, quarrels arose between them. It was also pleaded that the respondent owns a shop (hotel business) and has other sources of income from agricultural land. 4. The claim of the applicant was denied by the respondent by 7ling a written statement. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant is a poor person and has no source of income and, therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance to the applicant. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 7led by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, contrary to the evidence available on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the present revision deserves to be allowed in favour of the appellant. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court su@ers from factual and legal in7rmities and is therefore liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by the appellant. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the statements of the appellant and her witnesses. Thus, the learned Family Court has committed a serious error of law, and the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The 3 appellant has no source of income, whereas the respondent has a shop (hotel business) and other sources of income from agricultural land. The respondent, despite having suAcient means, does not want to reside with the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From a 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 7led by the applicant under Section 125 of the BNSS. The learned Family Court recorded a 7nding that the applicant had failed to establish that she was residing separately from the respondent for any suAcient or justi7able reason. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek