HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -p~ ^.)^4 'A- il Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh. j. Criminat Revision No. 251 of 2006 ApDiicant : Smt. Shivkumari, W/o Ramcharan Panika, aged about 42 years.Caste - Panika, R/o 'Village - Shivpur, P.S. Darima, Tahsii - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus Non-applicants : Rar|(charan, S/o Sukhanath, aged 55 yedrS, Caste - Panika, at present Addrsss West Chirmiri Cotliery Pondri (Garha Dafai), Timber Mistry, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahs!) - Koria, Dlst. - Koria (C.G.) Criminai Revision Under Section 19 (41of the Famiiv Courts Act. 1984 rresent : Appticant by Shri Neeraj Mehta.Advocate No one appears for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 13" August, 2009) This criminal revision was heard finatlytoday. 2. lt is directed against the order dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Famiiy Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 158 of 2005 whereby application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/wife was rejected on the ground that she did not prove that she was unable to maintain herseif. 3. in order to claim allowance for her maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., thewife has to prove thatshe is unabie to maintain herself. In this matter, the petitioner/wife did not depose on oath that she was unable to maintain herself. Besides, the non-applicanuhusband ied evidence to show that he has transferred agriculturai iand in the name of the petitioner/wife and the petitioner/wife was having income from agricuiture. On these premises, the learned Family Court, Ambikapur was justified in rejecting Uie appiication for grant of maintenance on the above finding: 4. There is no merit in this revision which i&dismissed. •< Sd-/' , DaipRaosahebDesbmukh Judge ^ ^ ^ 4-. ,;~Sh. ^""1 •^—'-