1 CGHC010022692025 2026:CGHC:35332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 105 of 2025 1 - Sarita W/o Jaiprakash And D/o Vijaynath Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pipra, P.S. And Tehsil- Patna, District- Koriya, C.G. At Present Village Narmadapur P.S. Kamleshwarpur Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Sarguja, C.G. 2 - Ritesh Kumar S/o Jaiprakash Aged About 11 Years Minor Represented By Natural Guardian / His Mother Sarita, R/o Village Pipra, P.S. And Tehsil- Patna, District- Koriya, C.G. At Present Village Narmadapur P.S. Kamleshwarpur Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Sarguja, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Jaiprakash S/o Ishwar Dayal Alias Mithai Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Pandopara, P.S. And Tahsil- Pandopara, District- Koriya, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Taram, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /08/2026 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent, is stated to be on adjustment. However, considering that the matter is an old AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 one and that Ms. Gunja Taram, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati is present, she is permitted to argue the matter. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance, while rejecting the said application in respect of applicant No.1. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2003, out of which three children were born, namely, Sumit, Neetu and Ritesh (applicant No.2). It is alleged that the non-applicant subjected applicant No.1 to continuous harassment, cruelty and demands for money on several occasions, including demands of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- for business purposes, pursuant to which an FIR was also registered against him in Criminal Case No.16/2015 and, thereafter, a compromise was entered into between the parties. It is further alleged that despite such compromise, the non-applicant again subjected applicant No.1 to harassment and assault, and the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- demanded by him was arranged by her father by obtaining a loan in the name of applicant No.1, which was utilised by the non-applicant for opening a clothing store at 3 Pandopara, but the loan instalments were not repaid by him. As the alleged harassment and ill-treatment continued for about 20-22 years, applicant No.1 ultimately left the matrimonial home along with applicant No.2 and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and applicant No.2. The learned Family Court, however, declined maintenance to applicant No.1, holding that she had failed to establish sufficient reason for living separately from the non-applicant, which has led to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in denying maintenance to applicant No.1 despite the material on record showing that she was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty by the non-applicant for about 20-23 years and that, even after furnishing an affidavit and entering into a compromise, the non-applicant continued such conduct, thereby providing sufficient reason for her to live separately and claim maintenance. She further submits that the learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that a criminal case had earlier been registered against the non-applicant in the year 2014 on account of such harassment, pursuant to which he had undertaken not to repeat such conduct. Despite the compromise, the non-applicant continued to ill-treat applicant No.1, which clearly demonstrated that she had sufficient cause to reside separately and was entitled to maintenance for her survival and dignified living. She also submits that the learned Family Court also failed to properly consider the 4 financial capacity of the non-applicant, who admittedly owns agricultural land and runs a clothing shop at Pandopara earning approximately Rs.25,000/- per month. Despite recording that he had sufficient means to maintain the applicants, the learned Family Court awarded only Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2 and denied maintenance altogether to applicant No.1. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance, while rejecting the said application in respect of applicant No.1, holding that applicant No.1 failed to establish sufficient reason for living separately from the respondent. The learned Family Court disbelieved her allegations of harassment and cruelty on account of certain contradictions between her pleadings, deposition and the earlier criminal case, and also found that the alleged payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by her father to the respondent was not proved by any documentary evidence. It was further observed that although the respondent had sufficient means to maintain the applicants, the 5 income of applicant No.1 from agricultural land was not established to be sufficient for her maintenance. Consequently, applicant No.1 was denied maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., whereas applicant No.2 was awarded maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil