2026:CGHC:6776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 204 of 2026 Mrs. Priya Ramteke Gajbhiye W/o Amit Gajbhiye Aged About 28 Years R/o-

Bharatiya Nagar Community Hall, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Applicant versus Amit Gajbhiye S/o Pannalal Gajbhiye Aged About 35 Years Caste-Mahar, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Near Bhimnagar, Gondia (Maharashtra)

... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Deepanjali Tiwari, Advocate.

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date:

2026.02.09

15:51:28 +0530 Order on Board

06.02.2026

1. Heard Ms. Deepanjali Tiwari, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant.

2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 25.11.2025, passed by the learned trial court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 58/2020 and may kindly be Direct the Respondent to pay reasonable monthly maintenance to the applicant, either from the date of application or such date as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.”

3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 12.05.2019 according to Hindu (Buddhist) rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant resided at her matrimonial home till 15.06.2019, during which period she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of unlawful demands for a motor car, a gold chain, and cash. Due to ill-health and denial of medical treatment by the respondent, the applicant was compelled to call her mother and return to Bilaspur for treatment, where she has been residing since then. Despite repeated efforts made by the applicant and her parents, the respondent failed to take her back and neglected to maintain her. The applicant, having no independent source of income, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/-, whereas the respondent is employed as an Engineer in the Army, earning approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month, and is a man of sufficient means.

4. After recording the evidence, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, dismissed the maintenance application mainly on the ground that the applicant failed to prove “sufficient cause” for living separately.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 is unsustainable in law, as it erroneously held that the applicant had no sufficient cause to live separately, while completely ignoring that cruelty and neglect by the husband and his family members constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 125 CrPC. She further submits that learned Family Court erred in law in failing to recognize that unlawful dowry demands, namely a motor car, gold chain, and cash, coupled with mental and physical harassment, clearly constitute sufficient cause for the Applicant to live separately. She also submits that respondent is employed as an Engineer in the Army and is earning approximately Rs. 80,000/- per month, whereas the applicant is a homemaker with no independent source of income and no prior work experience to earn her livelihood. The finding of the Family Court that the applicant left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The evidence clearly establishes that she was compelled to return to Bilaspur due to ill-health and the respondent’s denial of medical treatment. Denial of medical care amounts to a breach of marital obligations and justifies separate residence. She also submits that learned Trial Court / Family Court misread, overlooked, and ignored material evidence on record, thereby arriving at a perverse and unjust conclusion.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

7. From perusa