1 CGHC010416752025 2026:CGHC:36389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1223 of 2025 1. Smt. Pooja Yadav W/o Nitesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sarona Sant Ravidas Ward, Ward No. 70, Pani Tanki Near Gouthan Chowk Sahu Mohalla House Of Ishwar Sahu, Sarona, Raipur C.G. 2. Piyush Yadav S/o Nitesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 5 Years Applicant No. 2 Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Yadav, R/o Village Sarona Sant Ravidas Ward, Ward No. 70, Pani Tanki Near Gouthan Chowk Sahu Mohalla House Of Ishwar Sahu, Sarona, Raipur C.G. ... Applicants versus Nitesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Kukurbeda (Ravishankar Shukl Nagar), Near Samudayik Bhawan, In Front Of House Of Krishna Kirana, Shop Address- Gadi Mechanic Shop Amanaka Under Overbridge, Raipur C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Shukla and Ms. Archana Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision against the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 666/2018, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application filed PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.17 16:05:18 +0530 2 by the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., without considering the earlier maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant No. 2) granted by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, C.G., in Misc. Criminal Case No. 666/2018. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that Applicant No. 1 and the respondent solemnized their marriage in the year 2012 in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals, and customs. Out of the said wedlock, Applicant No. 2, a child, was born. The applicants pleaded that, after marriage, Applicant No. 1 lived peacefully with the respondent at her matrimonial home. However, after some time, the respondent started harassing and subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty on account of alleged insufficient dowry and raised an illegal demand for additional money. It was further alleged that the respondent was unwilling to live with Applicant No. 1 and, after assaulting and mentally harassing her, drove her out of the matrimonial home. Consequently, Applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and has since been residing at her parental home. Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income for her livelihood. She is presently residing in a rented accommodation. The respondent is engaged in running an automobile and mechanic shop and, according to the applicants, earns approximately ₹90,000/- per month from his business. Accordingly, the applicants filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹50,000/- per month from the respondent. The respondent/non-applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations and averments made in the 3 application. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence and considering the pleadings of the parties, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2025, dismissed the application filed by the applicants without awarding any amount of maintenance. The applicants submit that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts, evidence, and material available on record and thereby committed an error of law and fact. The impugned order is contrary to the provisions governing maintenance and has caused serious prejudice and hardship to the applicants. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.07.2025, whereby the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed without awarding any maintenance, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure A/1), passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence and material available on record. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor child. The rejection of her application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is therefore contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles governing maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that, vide order dated 26.03.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 666/2018, maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month (Rs.5,000/- for Applicant No. 1 and Rs.3,000/- for Applicant No. 2) had earlier been awarded in favour of the applicants. The said order was a material circumstance, which has not been properly 4 considered while passing the impugned order. Applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on account of the physical and mental cruelty allegedly inflicted upon her by the respondent. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the circumstances which compelled the applicant to live separately from the respondent. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the respondent's financial capacity and his ability to maintain the applicants. The respondent is engaged in the business of an automobile and mechanic shop and, according to the applicants, earns a substantial monthly income therefrom. Despite this material circumstance, the learned Court below dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without awarding any maintenance. After some time of the marriage, the respondent allegedly started quarreling with and harassing Applicant No. 1 without any justifiable reason. He allegedly demanded money for a motorcycle and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Due to such conduct, Applicant No. 1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and is presently residing in rented accommodation along with her minor child. She has no independent source of income and is facing considerable difficulty in meeting her basic expenses and livelihood. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent did not make any genuine effort to maintain a peaceful matrimonial relationship with Applicant No. 1. It was the respondent who allegedly drove her out of the matrimonial home after subjecting her to physical and mental harassment. 5. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material available on record and rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. without recording adequate and cogent reasons. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. Applicant 5 No. 1 is financially dependent and has no independent source of income for her livelihood. She is also required to take care of her minor child. The learned Family Court failed to consider her actual financial circumstances and the difficulties being faced by her in maintaining herself and her child. The learned trial Court failed to consider that Applicant No. 1 was compelled to live separately from the respondent due to his alleged acts of cruelty and harassment. The finding, if any, that she was not entitled to maintenance merely because she was living separately is contrary to the material available on record. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Applicant No. 1 had made efforts to reside with the respondent at the matrimonial home, but the respondent allegedly subjected her to harassment and made repeated demands for dowry. The applicant cannot be denied maintenance if her separate residence is supported by sufficient and reasonable cause. Denial of maintenance to Applicant No. 1, despite her being the legally wedded wife of the respondent and having no independent source of income, has resulted in serious hardship and deprivation of her lawful right to seek maintenance in accordance with law. The learned Family Court appears to have placed undue reliance upon the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act while rejecting the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., without properly considering the evidence regarding the respondent's conduct, the applicant's financial condition, and her reasons for living separately. The learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the settled principles governing the grant of maintenance and the material evidence available on record. The impugned order is consequently contrary to law, facts, and the circumstances of the case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are entitled to reasonable maintenance from the respondent. The impugned 6 order dated 18.07.2025 is therefore liable to be set aside and the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed by awarding appropriate maintenance to the applicants, in the interest of justice. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the Family Court is bad in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants observing that the applicants have neither produced any document in this regard nor examined any independent witness in support thereof. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence does not establish that Applicant No. 2 is the child born out of the matrimonial relationship between the non-applicant and Applicant No. 1. 9. The respondent is ready and willing to undergo a DNA test. It is submitted that Applicant No. 1 has refused to undergo the DNA test, while the respondent denies the marriage as well as the fact that Applicant No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. In such circumstances, a DNA report would be a substantive piece of evidence to establish whether the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place and whether Applicant No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. Although interim maintenance was initially granted by the learned Family Court, subsequently, by the final order, the claim for maintenance was rejected 7 on the ground that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent could not be proved and that Applicant No. 2 could not be established to be the child of the respondent. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur in Misc. Criminal Case No.666/2018, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court concerned on 24th of August, 2026. 11. However, this Court hope and trust that the Family Court concerned shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti