1 CGHC010046372025 2026:CGHC:34263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 201 of 2025 Smt. Bhuneshwari Nirmalkar W/o Mahesh Nirmalkar Aged About 37 Years Presently Residing At Ward No.- 05, Sanjay Nagar, Nayapara, P.S.- Mahasamund, Tehsil And District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Mahesh Nirmalkar S/o Late Punitram Nirmalkar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Guma, Post- Tenduva, Tehsil- Urla, District- Raipur (C.G.) Presently Residing At Mahamaya Ward, House Of Ajit Singh Rathor, Post, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Posted At - Government Pre- Secondary School, Sonsari, Post- Batra, Tehsil- Pali, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the learned family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal case No. 209/2023, Smt. Bhuneshwari Nirmalkar Vs. Mahesh Nirmalkar, (ANNEXURE-P/1) and allowed the maintenance application of the applicant and further passed any other order in favour of the applicant, which this Hon'ble Court may think 7t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 16.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, a son was born on 20.04.2013. After the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife for about eight to nine years. The applicant alleges that after the birth of their son, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent as well as his family members underwent a drastic change and she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty. It is alleged that the respondent, who was habituated to consuming alcohol, frequently abused the applicant by making derogatory remarks regarding her physical appearance, calling her “unlucky” and a “witch”, threatening to abandon her, and compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the respondent used to physically assault the applicant after consuming alcohol and, despite repeated complaints made by her, his family members 3 supported his conduct instead of protecting her. The applicant has also alleged that she was subjected to grave physical and mental harassment, deprived of normal marital relations, and compelled to undergo unnatural and abusive acts, resulting in deterioration of her physical and mental health. According to the applicant, on 08.06.2021, the respondent assaulted her and left her at her parental home at Mahasamund, where she has been residing ever since, and thereafter neither took her back to the matrimonial home nor made any provision for her maintenance or other necessary expenses. Consequently, the applicant instituted proceedings before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, pleading that she is a housewife with no independent source of income and is residing with her parents, whereas the respondent is employed as a Government Teacher and is drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs.56,000/-. The applicant, therefore, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. 3. The respondent entered appearance, 8led his reply denying all the allegations levelled against him, and made counter-allegations against the applicant. During the course of the proceedings, both parties adduced oral evidence in support of their respective cases. However, after considering the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.10.2024, rejected the application for maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts on record and settled principles of law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has committed a material irregularity in rejecting the applicant’s claim for maintenance and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the applicant was compelled to reside separately from the respondent on account of the physical and mental cruelty meted out to her by the respondent and his family members, and thus she had suEcient cause to live separately, entitling her to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submits that the applicant has always been willing and ready to resume cohabitation and reside with the respondent and their child, but it was the respondent who refused to keep her in the matrimonial home and made no sincere eGort towards reconciliation or restoration of the matrimonial relationship. It is also contended that no eGective mediation or conciliation proceedings were undertaken before the learned Family Court to explore the possibility of reunion between the parties. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the admitted fact that the respondent is employed as a Government Teacher and is earning approximately Rs.56,000/- per month, yet he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicant despite having suEcient means. It is further argued that 5 the applicant is a homemaker, has no independent source of income, is wholly dependent upon her parental family for her survival, and is unable to maintain herself. It is, therefore, submitted that the 8ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are contrary to the evidence available on record, suGer from perversity, arbitrariness and material irregularity, and consequently the impugned order deserves to be set aside by allowing the present revision petition. 6. 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 Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.). 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after giving due consideration to the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the entire material available before it, has passed a well-reasoned, speaking and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has meticulously examined the rival contentions of the parties, appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, and recorded categorical 8ndings on the issues involved. The Court has also considered the allegations levelled by the applicant, the defence taken by the respondent, the testimony of the witnesses, and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case before arriving at 6 the conclusion that the applicant had failed to establish the essential ingredients entitling her to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Family Court has further assigned cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the application and has arrived at its conclusions on the basis of proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles of law. The 8ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on the material available on record. 9. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in8rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi8ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan