1 CGHC010222222025 2026:CGHC:37113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 689 of 2025 Smt. Soniya ( Prachi) W/o Prashant Sinha Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 74/C Ispat Club Risali Sector, Bhilai Tahsil and District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Prashant Sinha S/o Balram Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Uttar Vasundhara Nagar, Bhilai - 03, Tahsil Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhrurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that she 8led her Vakalatnama in the present case yesterday. 2. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 3. The present revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set - aside the impugned order dated 21-05-2025 (Annexure ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.20 11:28:03 +0530 2 A-1) and also be pleased to award maintenance prayed in the under section 125 of CRPC (led before the learned Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant (wife) 8led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance. It was pleaded, inter alia, in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.02.2019. Thereafter, both the parties started residing together, however, since 20.09.2020, they have been residing separately. It was further pleaded that the applicant was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband. It was also pleaded that the husband was working as a contractor and was an “A” Class Electrical Contractor as well as a civil contractor. It was further pleaded that he had a dealership of snacks and cold drinks. It was also stated that the father of the husband was a retired BSP employee and that the husband owned 4 acres of agricultural land as well as various other parcels of land. It was pleaded that the husband had neglected to maintain the wife and had subjected her to harassment. Since the wife had no independent source of income, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month was claimed. 5. The husband 8led his written statement and denied the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that the wife had willfully left the matrimonial home and that several counselling sessions had been conducted by the family, but she refused to resume cohabitation. It was further pleaded that the wife used to insult his parents. In his pleadings, the husband admitted that he was working as an Electrical Contractor and also had a dealership, which he had discontinued in the year 2022. He also admitted joint ownership of 4 acres of land and pleaded that he had no independent source of income. It was further pleaded that the 3 wife was highly educated, being an M.Tech. in Computer Science, and was earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was also pleaded that the husband’s guardian was working in the Bhilai Steel Plant and, therefore, the wife was not entitled to claim maintenance. 6. Before the learned Family Court, the wife examined herself as AW-1, whereas the husband examined himself as NAW-1 and also examined one Balram Sinha as NAW-2. The parties also exhibited various documents. 7. The learned Family Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, whereby the application for maintenance was rejected on the ground that the wife was residing separately without suBcient reason. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, without application of mind, and is contrary to the object and purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband, in his evidence, has not produced any document in support of his plea regarding the community meeting, on the basis of which the learned Court has arrived at the 8nding that the wife is residing separately without suBcient reason. From the evidence available on record, it has come on record that, in the community meeting, both the parties were advised to reside separately. Therefore, the 8nding that the wife is residing separately without any suBcient reason is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the husband, wherein he has admitted that the wife was unwell and was taken to the hospital and thereafter to her parental home (Maika). He has further admitted that he was present at that time and that he himself left 4 the wife at her parental home. Therefore, there is no occasion to hold that the wife is residing separately of her own will. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that no eDorts were made by the husband to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home, and there is no evidence adduced by him to establish that he had made any such eDorts. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is a highly educated person and has admitted that, at the time of marriage, he was working as an Electrical Contractor and was also having a dealership. He has further admitted that he has a share in 4 acres of ancestral property. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband has made a false disclosure regarding his income in the aBdavit submitted in compliance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. He also submits that the it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, particularly when the wife has no independent source of income to maintain herself. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1407/2022. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. 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 8led by the applicant under Section 125 of the BNSS, observing that the applicant had failed to establish that she was residing separately from the 5 respondent for any suBcient or justi8able cause. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek