##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5542

KUNAL

DEWANGAN

NAFR

Digitally

signed by

KUNAL

DEWANGAN

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 655 of 2024

Smt. Rekha Yadav W/o Bhagwati Yadav, D/o Sunder Lal Yadav Aged

About 33 Years R/o Village Guma, Post Tendua, Via Tatibandh,urla, Dist-

Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

Shri Bhagwati Yadav S/o Ramswaroop Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o

Shanti Vihar Colony ,naresh Kirana Stores, Danganiya, Deendayal Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

---- Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. C.J.K.Rao, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

31.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Also heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant, being

aggrieved with the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned

Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No.

445/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the

application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for

2

grant of maintenance.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage between the

present applicant and the non-applicant/husband was solemnized

on 24.11.2016 at Village Guma, Raipur, as per Hindu rites and

rituals. The case of the applicant is that after about six months of

marriage, the non-applicant/husband and his family members

started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment in

connection with dowry demands and demanded a four-wheeler

vehicle and Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is alleged that since the non-

applicant/husband remained outside the house due to his job, his

father and brother harassed the applicant physically and threatened

to kill her. It is further alleged that the family members forcibly

subjected the applicant to medical procedures so that she could not

conceive and thereafter sent her to her parental home. The

applicant also lodged a report under Sections 498-A and 376 of the

IPC. The applicant has no independent source of income, whereas

the non-applicant/husband is employed at the Police Headquarters

as Subedar (M) and earns a salary of more than Rs. 45,000/- per

month. The applicant claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per

month.

4. The reply filed by the non-applicant/husband denied all allegations

and contended that his family members have been falsely

implicated and that the applicant used to quarrel with them and he

prayed for rejection of the application.

5. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and

3

material available on record, passed the order dated 23.04.2022,

granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of

the applicant, however, by final order dated 20.05.2024, the Family

Court held that since the non-applicant/husband and his family

members had been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A,

506, 323, and 376(2)(k)(n) IPC and the applicant failed to prove

cruelty and dowry harassment, she was not entitled to maintenance,

and accordingly dismissed her application under Section 125

Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has

preferred the present revision.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance with

the Court’s order dated 13.12.2024, mediation proceedings

between the parties are pending before the Mediation Centre of this

Court. As per the mediation report dated 06.01.2025, both the

applicant and the non-applicant/husband appeared before the

Mediation Centre on the date fixed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court. During mediation, the non-applicant/husband expressed his

willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to

the applicant, subject to withdrawal of all pending cases; however,

the applicant refused the said proposal and insisted upon monthly

maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. Consequently, the mediation

proceedings failed and the dispute remains unresolved. He further

submits that the learned Family Court has misconceived both the

law and the facts while dis