Smt. Premshila vs Lallan Jamidar Singh
2026 Latest Caselaw 9 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Premshila vs Lallan Jamidar Singh on 25 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                                  1




                                                                                   2026:CGHC:9854
                                                                                                      NAFR

                                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                       CRR No. 286 of 2026

                        Smt. Premshila Wife of Lallan Jamidar Singh Aged About 45 Years Resident of
                        Zone-2, Khursipar, Bapu Nagar, N.P.A. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg,
                        Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                               ... Applicant
                                                               versus
                        Lallan Jamidar Singh Son of Jamindar Ram Singh Aged About 54 Years
                        Through Santosh Jamindar Singh, Resident of 29, Charanjit Nivas Kokan
                        Mannanjar Bhandup Mumbai (Maharashtra) Second Address - Prisha Advisor
                        Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.64, Veena Nagar, C.H.S. Ltd. Building No. 02, L.B.S. Marg
                        Mumabi (West)
                                                                                            ... Respondent

                         For Applicant                        : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate.
           Digitally
           signed by
           ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK   SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS    Date:
           2026.02.25
                                           Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
           16:56:36
           +0530
                                                         Order on Board

                        25.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

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

prayer:

"It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly

be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-aside

impugned order dated 20.01.2026 and also may kindly

be granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per

month as sought by the applicant in application under

section 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice."

3. Facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of

Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the respondent. It is an admitted fact that

on 10.07.2020, the respondent contracted a second marriage with the

applicant at Arya Samaj Mandir, Purani Basti, Bhilai, with the consent of

his family members, after obtaining a decree of divorce from his first wife.

The case of the applicant is that after the marriage, she was residing

peacefully and happily with the respondent at her matrimonial home.

However, after some time, the respondent started harassing and

torturing the applicant by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty.

The respondent pressurized the applicant to leave the matrimonial home

and expressed his unwillingness to live with her. Ultimately, the

respondent assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial house.

Due to such harassment and mental torture, the applicant left the

matrimonial home and is presently residing at her parental house. The

applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and has no

independent source of income for her livelihood. The respondent is

engaged in the business of Chartered Accountancy and also runs a hotel

and a Security Services Company. From his business and other sources,

he is earning approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per month. Hence, the

applicant filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the

respondent.

4. The respondent filed his reply and denied the averments made in the

application filed by the applicant.

5. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence and considering

the pleadings of the parties, vide impugned order dated 20.01.2026,

dismissed the application filed by the applicant without granting any

maintenance.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated

20.01.2026 passed by the learned First Principal Judge, Family Court,

Durg, Chhattisgarh is wholly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the

evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The respondent

misbehaved with the applicant and mentally harassed her by demanding

Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the learned Family Court ignored the said facts

while passing the impugned order, which is contrary to law. He submits

that the learned Family Court overlooked the income of the respondent

and the statutory provisions relating to maintenance, and wrongly

rejected the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure without granting any maintenance. The said order is

completely illegal and unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated

20.01.2026 is illegal as the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the

respondent and, under the Hindu Marriage Act, she is entitled to

maintenance. Despite this, the learned Family Court erroneously rejected

her claim for maintenance, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It

is pertinent to mention that the applicant left her matrimonial home due to

the cruelty committed by the respondent and suffered both mental and

physical harassment. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the

respondent is financially capable of maintaining the applicant and can

comfortably provide maintenance for her livelihood. He also submits that

soon after the marriage, the respondent unnecessarily picked quarrels

with the applicant without any sufficient cause and showed unwillingness

to continue the marital relationship. His conduct amounted to cruelty, due

to which the applicant was mentally harassed and compelled to leave her

matrimonial home. She has no independent source of income and is

facing great difficulty in maintaining herself and meeting her daily needs.

He also submits that the respondent did not wish to live with the

applicant and forcibly drove her out of the matrimonial house after

assaulting her. The learned Family Court failed to properly apply its

judicial mind and rejected the application under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure in a mechanical manner. The applicant is a poor

lady and her mother is suffering from various illnesses. She is facing

extreme hardship in sustaining herself. The learned Family Court failed to

follow the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and rejected the

application without properly appreciating the facts and material available

on record, which is contrary to law. The respondent never made any

effort to resume cohabitation with the applicant. On the contrary,

whenever the applicant attempted to live with him at the matrimonial

home, he harassed and tortured her on the pretext of insufficient dowry

and repeatedly demanded dowry. If maintenance is not granted to the

applicant in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, she will be

deprived of her legal right as the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

The refusal to grant maintenance is therefore contrary to law.

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

and documents appended thereto.

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family

Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record,

rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

observing that in paragraph 19 of her cross-examination the applicant

voluntarily admitted that she had been working as an ASHA worker prior

to the year 2012, and in paragraph 22 she admitted that she does not

suffer from any illness or physical disability preventing her from earning

her livelihood, thereby indicating that she was previously earning and is

still capable of maintaining herself. The Court further found that the

applicant was legally married to Rajesh Jaiswal, who is still alive, and

that no decree of divorce has been obtained, from the said wedlock two

children, Shubham and Rishabh, were born, both of whom are major,

capable of earning, and residing with the applicant. It was also observed

that without dissolution of her earlier marriage, the applicant went

through a marriage ceremony with the respondent by representing

herself to be unmarried, and on the basis of the entire appreciation of

evidence, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

9. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court

has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the

impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for

necessary information and compliance forthwith.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Abhishek