1 2026:CGHC:10794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 317 of 2026 Smt. Vidya Sahu W/o Ramkhilawan Sahu Aged About 31 Years Address And R/o C/o Toman Lal Sahu, Saksharta Chowk, Camp-2, P.S. Chhawni, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Khorbahara Sahu Aged About 33 Years Address And R/o Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Bhilai-3, P.S. Purana Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /03/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1485/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.04.2008 at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), according to Hindu rites and customs, and a son was born out of the wedlock in 2009. The applicant alleged that after a few months of marriage, the respondent subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, demanded dowry, consumed intoxicants, and assaulted her. Due to continued harassment, she left the matrimonial home on 09.04.2013 and has since been residing at her parental house without any financial support from the respondent. She further alleged that the respondent, who works as a mason earning approximately Rs. 25,000–30,000 per month and has inherited property from his deceased father, has neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the applicant was quarrelsome, abusive, and had voluntarily deserted him without sufficient cause. He alleged that she misbehaved with his parents, assaulted his mother, and left the matrimonial home on her own accord. He further claimed that he is solely maintaining their minor son and his aged mother while working as a daily wage laborer, and that the applicant is capable of maintaining herself as she is working in households. He also alleged that the applicant is living with another man and has remarried. After considering the evidence, 3 the learned Family Court, by order dated 24.01.2026, rejected the applicant’s claim for maintenance, against which the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.01.2026 is perverse, arbitrary, and passed without proper application of judicial mind, and therefore deserves to be quashed. The applicant was compelled to live separately due to the cruel conduct of the respondent, who is allegedly addicted to intoxicants and used to assault her while under the influence. She further submits that the respondent is working as a mason and earns approximately Rs. 25,000–30,000 per month. He resides in a well-constructed house and has inherited movable and immovable properties from his deceased father, who earlier ran a sweet shop. Thus, he has sufficient means to maintain the applicant. She also submits that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance application despite the admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, is unemployed, and has no independent source of income. Being from a poor family and facing financial hardship, she is entitled to maintenance, and the rejection of her application without sufficient reason is unjustified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant, holding that the applicant failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty or that she was compelled to live separately for sufficient cause. The Court found material contradictions in her oral and documentary evidence regarding the alleged incidents and her place of residence, rendering her testimony unreliable. It was further held that she is living separately without justifiable reason and is capable of maintaining herself, and therefore, in view of Section 125(4) CrPC, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil