SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MADHURI SAHU – Appellant
Versus
RAMBALI SAHU – Respondent
CRR/887/2024



##PAGE1##

1

GOURI

MUDALIAR

2026:CGHC:5530

Digitally signed by

GOURI MUDALIAR

Date: 2026.02.02

17:26:58 +0530 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 887 of 2024

Madhuri Sahu W/o Shri Rambali Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village

Bachhera Ps City Kotwali Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

Rambali Sahu S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village

Bachhera Ps City Kotwali Mungeli Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

31/01/2026

1. Heard Shri Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

applicant.

2. This Criminal Revision is filed being aggrieved by the order dated

05.07.2024, passed by learned Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli

(C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.132/2023, whereby the learned

Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

filed by the applicant.

##PAGE2##

2

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was married to the

non-applicant according to Hindu rites and customs on 23.04.2022.

The applicant alleges that after marriage, the non-applicant subjected

her to physical and mental cruelty on account of dowry demands and

ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home in September 2022,

since when she has been residing at her parental home. The applicant

claims that the non-applicant is engaged in contracting work, earning

approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month, and is also the owner of five

acres of double-crop agricultural land, yielding substantial annual

income. On this basis, she sought maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per

month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicant admitted the fact

of marriage but denied all allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. He

contended that the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home,

refused to live with him, and is residing at her parental house of her

own free will. After considering the facts and evidence, learned trial

court passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 whereby dismissed

the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. Hence,

this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order

dated 05.07.2024, passed by the learned Family Court, is bad in law,

perverse, erroneous, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on

record and therefore the same deserves to be set aside and

maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month be granted in favour of

the applicant. He would submit that the learned Family Court has

ignored the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., despite the fact that

the applicant is residing separately for sufficient and justified reasons.

He would submit that the learned family Court failed to consider that

##PAGE3##

3

the respondent/non-applicant has not filed any application for

restitution of conjugal rights, which clearly shows that the respondent is

not interested in resuming cohabitation or maintaining a happy marital

life. He would submit that the learned Family Court ignored the salary

certificate filed by the applicant, which establishes that the

respondent/non-applicant is earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per

month. He would submit that the learned Family Court failed to

appreciate that it stands duly proved that the applicant is residing

separately for sufficient cause. The reply filed by the respondent/non-

applicant does not specifically deny the averments made in the

application, and the learned Family Court also failed to properly apply

the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned

order. He would submit that considering the income and financial

capacity of the respondent/husband, the applicant is entitled to a

reasonable and adequate amount of maintenance.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings

and documents appended thereto.

6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned

Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 05/07/2024 after

due an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top