1 CGHC010122262025 2026:CGHC:37126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 439 of 2025 Smt. Roshni Sagar W/o Ramesh Sagar Aged About 28 Years Quarter No. 106a Udiya Mohalla, Prem Nagar, Camp-1 Bhilai Tehsil And Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ramesh Sagar S/o Late Govind Sagar Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind The Tandula Water Resources, Water Resources Colony, Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Family Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.1349/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. She alleged that, despite the respondent and his family members being aware of her poor financial background, soon after the marriage she was subjected to cruelty, assault and harassment on the ground of insufficient dowry, was not provided proper food, and her mangalsutra was also taken away. She further alleged that on 09.04.2018 and 02.08.2018, the respondent, after consuming liquor, assaulted her, pursuant to which she made complaints to the police and thereafter approached the Mahila Police Station, where the respondent refused to keep her in the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. The applicant claimed that the respondent is a Government servant earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas she has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent, in his reply, denied the marital relationship on the ground that the marriage was incomplete and also claimed that he is handicapped and suffering from various ailments, and that the applicant had 3 voluntarily left his house. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is erroneous and contrary to law, as the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no independent source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is a healthy person, employed in Government service and earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, and is therefore legally and financially capable of maintaining the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Judge failed to consider that the applicant was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the respondent and his family members, on account of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. The applicant had also lodged several complaints before the police authorities regarding the alleged cruelty and assault, which sufficiently demonstrated the reason for her separate residence. He also submits that the learned Family Judge also failed to appreciate that the marital relationship between the parties was not genuinely disputed and that the respondent, being the husband, has a legal obligation to maintain the applicant, who is unable to maintain herself. The impugned order, therefore, has resulted in grave injustice and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 4 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, holding that although the marital relationship between the parties was established, the applicant failed to prove any sufficient or justifiable reason for residing separately from the respondent. The learned Court found material contradictions between her oral and documentary evidence regarding the alleged cruelty, assault and matrimonial discord, and also noted that she had admittedly resided at her parental home for most of the period after marriage and had not clearly established that the respondent had refused to keep her. The Court further observed that the respondent was physically disabled and required assistance for travelling, and therefore the applicant’s grievance that he did not come to take her back was not considered a sufficient ground for separate residence. Consequently, holding that the applicant was residing separately without sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court dismissed her application for maintenance. 5 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil