1 CGHC010091342025 2026:CGHC:34570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 313 of 2025 Smt. Mridula Sahu W/o Shri Dheeraj Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Mohra, Post Selar, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Dheeraj Sahu S/o Shri Buddheshwar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o. Gopal Sawmill, Budhwari Bazar Society, Police Station Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Presently District Sakti ) (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate along with Ms. Anjana Banjarey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 2led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. set-aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2025, (Annexure P/1), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Presided over by Shri Niranjan Lal Chauhan), in Misc. Criminal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Case No. 25/2022, 2. direct the Respondent to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month to the Applicant as monthly maintenance from the date of application, in the interest of justice” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 30.04.2012 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Mohra (Matiyari), Sipat, District Bilaspur. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely Chandra Aditya, was born on 12.09.2014, who is presently residing with the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month, alleging that soon after the marriage she was subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of an unlawful demand of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as dowry. It was further alleged that the respondent, under the in=uence of alcohol, used to assault and abuse her and continued to subject her to cruelty even during her pregnancy. According to the applicant, on 05.10.2015 she was forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home along with her minor son with a demand that she would be taken back only after ful2lling the demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further pleaded that although a social meeting was convened on 10.12.2016 and, upon intervention of the community members, she resumed cohabitation with the respondent on 14.12.2016, she was again subjected to cruelty. The applicant further alleged that in March, 2017, her 3 brother-in-law, Krishnadev Sahu, entered her room and behaved indecently with her and that when she informed the respondent about the incident, he supported the conduct of his brother. She also alleged that she was compelled by the respondent and his family members to undergo forcible termination of pregnancy on two occasions. It was further averred that, being unable to bear the continuous harassment and ill-treatment, another social meeting was convened on 02.07.2020, but as no amicable settlement could be arrived at, she left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Thereafter, on 06.08.2021, she lodged a written complaint before the Women Police Station, Bilaspur against the respondent and his family members. It was also pleaded that she has no independent source of income, whereas the respondent owns and operates a Gopal Saw Mill and a timber depot at Sakti, allegedly earning about Rs.5,00,000/- per month therefrom, besides deriving an annual income of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- from 40 acres of ancestral agricultural land, and on the basis of the said averments, she claimed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. 3. The respondent 2led his detailed reply admitting the marriage and the birth of the son but denying all other allegations. He contended that the applicant was living in an adulterous relationship with one Avinash Sahu alias Bankebihari and had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without any justi2able cause. It was further pleaded that the applicant had admitted her illicit relationship during a social meeting held on 02.07.2020, where a call recording was also played before the members of the community, and that 4 subsequently, in another family meeting held on 30.08.2020, she reiterated the said admission and expressed her unwillingness to keep the minor child, whereafter, with the consent of the applicant and her family members, the custody of the child remained with the respondent. The respondent further asserted that the applicant is gainfully employed at Bilaspur and is, therefore, capable of maintaining herself, rendering her claim for maintenance untenable. 4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court framed four issues for determination and, by its judgment, recorded 2ndings that although the respondent possessed suCcient means to maintain the applicant, the applicant had failed to establish that she was unable to maintain herself or that she had suCcient reason to live separately from the respondent. Consequently, holding that the applicant was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Family Court dismissed the maintenance application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No.25/2022 is illegal, erroneous, contrary to the facts on record and the settled principles of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant, which clearly establishes that she was subjected to 5 continuous physical and mental cruelty, harassment and unlawful demand of dowry at the hands of the respondent and his family members, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the applicant had suCciently proved that she was subjected to grave acts of cruelty, including the forcible termination of her pregnancy on two occasions, and that the minor child was forcibly taken away by the respondent and retained in his custody, which also constituted an act of cruelty. It would further submit that the learned Family Court erred in holding that the applicant had no suCcient reason to reside separately, despite the overwhelming evidence on record demonstrating that she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment meted out to her and not out of her own free will. 6. It is also argued that the applicant is unemployed, has no independent source of income and is presently dependent upon her brother and other family members for her livelihood, whereas the respondent is a person having suCcient means and is under a statutory obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife so long as the marital relationship subsists. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the respondent regarding the applicant’s alleged adulterous relationship were neither substantiated by any cogent nor reliable evidence, yet the learned Family Court erroneously relied upon the same while rejecting the claim for maintenance. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and has misdirected itself on the material issues involved, resulting in an 6 erroneous denial of maintenance to the applicant, which is contrary to the object and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suGers from patent illegality and perversity and deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. 7. 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 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded well-reasoned 2ndings on each of the issues framed for determination. The learned Family Court has duly taken into consideration the rival allegations and the evidence led by both the parties and has rightly held that although the respondent possesses suCcient means, the applicant failed to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that she was unable to maintain herself or that she had suCcient and justi2able reason to reside separately from the respondent. The learned Family Court has further found that the allegations of cruelty and harassment levelled by the applicant were 7 not proved to the extent necessary to entitle her to maintenance and that the evidence brought on record did not substantiate her claim that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home for suCcient cause. The learned Family Court has also considered the defence raised by the respondent and, upon a proper appreciation of the entire evidence, arrived at a well-founded conclusion that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden cast upon her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The 2ndings so recorded are based upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and settled principles of law governing proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 2nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in2rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certi2ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan