1 2026:CGHC:7158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 343 of 2024 Smt. Arti Bhardwaj W/o Shri Omprakash Bhardwaj Aged About 26 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Charpara, Police Station- Malkharauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present- R/o New Chandaniya Para, (Near Shiv Mandir) House of Lahmor, Police Station- Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Omprakash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Ajitram Aged About 33 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Charpara, Police Station Malkharauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this criminal revision when the case is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been =led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 10:56:48 +0530 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 13/02/2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in M.J.C. No.38/2019 and further be pleased to allow maintenance as sought by the applicant in her application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C..” 4. Facts of the case are that That the applicant had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), seeking grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 18.04.2017 as per caste rituals, and the Gauna ceremony was also duly performed. The applicant stated in her application that after the marriage, the respondent kept her properly only for two days. Thereafter, under the inAuence of his family members, the respondent started harassing and beating her on the ground that she had not brought a motorcycle as dowry. The applicant continued to live with the hope that the behaviour of the respondent would improve, but there was no such improvement. After about one month, the respondent beat her and sent her to her maternal home. Subsequently, her father and elder sister, Gracy Tandon, took her to the house of the respondent and requested him to keep her with dignity, but the respondent and his parents refused to keep her and insulted her and drove her out of the house. Consequently, the applicant was forced to return to her maternal home, where she is presently residing. The respondent has not made any arrangements for her maintenance, care, or livelihood. The applicant is a less-educated woman and has no independent source of income. The respondent is posted as a Class-II 3 employee in Government Middle School, Amandula, and is receiving a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 40,000/-. Further, the joint family of the respondent owns about 08 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns an annual income of about Rs. 1,00,000/-. Therefore, the applicant prayed for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. 5. The respondent, while admitting the marriage, denied the remaining pleadings of the applicant. He pleaded that the applicant lived well in his house for three days after marriage, after which she started insisting on going to her maternal home. Despite his persuasion, she called her parents and elder sister and went to her parents’ house. According to him, the applicant did not return for 25–26 days. When he went to village Jhalraunda to bring her back, the applicant’s family stated that her health was not good and that she would return only after recovery. He stated that he went several times to bring the applicant back, but she did not return. On 25.06.2017, he along with the Sarpanch of village Jhalraunda, Firat Ram Chauhan, BDC Member Ramesh Chandra, and other villagers namely Jaylal Bharti, Budhram Bharti, Chandrakumar, Ghosiram Sonwani, Banshilal Bhardwaj and Lakhan Lal Bhardwaj, went to bring the applicant, but her maternal family refused to send her, citing her ill health. The respondent further submitted that on 09.07.2017, he again went to bring the applicant along with Budhram Bharti, Jaylal Bharti, Lakhan Lal Bharti, Ramkumar Bharti, Ahilya Bharti and Gyanendra Bharti, but the applicant and her parents again refused to send her. He denied all allegations of harassment or dowry demand. He further alleged that since the applicant has =ve sisters and no brother, her parents wanted her to live as a Ghar-Jamai, and upon refusal, a false report was lodged against him and his family members at Police Station Malkharoda. 4 6. He further stated that he loves his wife and is ready to keep her even today. According to him, the applicant is living at her maternal home without any suFcient reason. He alleged that the applicant is educated, has passed Class 12th, and earns Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month through sewing, embroidery, and weaving work. He further stated that her father owns 05 acres of agricultural land. He claimed that he is an irregular teacher in Government Middle School, Amandula, earning only Rs. 5,000/- per month, and has no other source of income. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. The learned Family Court, on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, framed the following three issues and recorded =ndings on all of them as “Not Proved”: 1. Whether the applicant is living separately from the respondent for suFcient reason? 2. Whether the applicant is incapable of maintaining herself? 3. Whether the respondent, despite having suFcient income, has neglected to maintain the applicant? 8. In support of her case, the applicant examined herself as P.W.-01 and Dwasram Tandon as P.W.-02. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself and three witnesses, namely Smt. Shyam Kumari Madhuri (D.W.-02), Smt. Anita Bharti (D.W.-03) and Rukhmani Bai Bharti (D.W.-04). 9. After recording the evidence, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order rejecting the maintenance application of the applicant. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in law as well as on facts, and is contrary to the material available on record. 5 11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has recorded erroneous =ndings on the issues framed, particularly in view of the consistent statements of the applicant and her witness, which have been discarded without proper appreciation. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is a Government Middle School teacher, yet accepted his disclosure of a meagre income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed a serious error by not directing the respondent to produce his salary slip and service record, and therefore the impugned order suJers from non-application of mind and is vitiated in law. He further submits that where a wife has complained of persistent cruelty and dowry demands by the husband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such conduct creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that she may be subjected to physical or mental cruelty, and therefore constitutes a just and suFcient ground to live separately. He submits that the learned Family Court has ignored the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the impugned order. He also submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating the evidence led by the parties in its proper perspective. He submits that the learned Family Court below has committed a serious error in discarding the evidence of the applicant regarding harassment and cruelty, despite the same being supported by oral testimony. He further submits that the learned Family Court has committed a material irregularity in rejecting the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a bene=cial provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The learned Family Court has arrived at erroneous conclusions, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the appreciation 6 of evidence by the learned Family Court is manifestly erroneous, and the reasoning adopted by the Family Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. =led by the applicant, observing that the applicant is living separately from the respondent without suFcient cause. 14. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the =nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in=rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a certi=ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek