1 2026:CGHC:7143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1368 of 2024 Jasmin Begum W/o Abdul Arif Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o - Through Chand Khan (Father) Village Machandur (Utai) Post Machandur Tehsil and District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Abdul Arif Khan S/o Abdul Aleem Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village Dhusera (Dongargarh) Jatkanhar Police Station Jatkanhar District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.22/2023, whereby the applicant for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Family Court. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 01.06.2014 in accordance with the local social customs of the parties at Village Machandur (Utai), Post PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 14:08:10 +0530 2 Machandur, Tehsil and District – Durg (C.G.). It was alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent started harassing the applicant over trivial matters, subjected her to physical cruelty, and demanded money in the name of dowry. It was further alleged that the respondent wilfully neglected and refused to maintain and take care of the applicant, as a result of which she was constrained to file the said petition before the court below, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The respondent appeared before the court below and denied all the allegations made against him. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned court below rejected the application for grant of maintenance to the applicant. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside and/or modified. The learned trial Court has wrongly presumed that there was no cruelty on the part of the applicant and his family members, despite sufficient evidence on record to the contrary. The respondent failed to prove that he was genuinely willing to resume cohabitation with the wife, however, solely on the basis of the self-serving statement of the applicant, the learned trial Court erroneously concluded that he was ready to keep the wife and that the wife was wilfully avoiding to live with him. The learned trial Court erred in holding that, in the absence of any application for settlement between the parties, it cannot be said that the wife was living separately without sufficient cause. Although the respondent stated during counselling proceedings before the Mahila Thana that he was willing to keep the wife, he failed to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof, which clearly shows that he did not approach the court with clean hands. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the 3 applicant, wherein she categorically proved that the respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for various reasons, compelling her to live separately from her husband. The learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent had assaulted the applicant when she returned from her parental home, due to which she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. The applicant has no independent source of income, yet the learned trial Court completely ignored this material fact. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti