1 2025:CGHC:32935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 287 of 2023 Sudhmani Chakresh W/o Premchand Chakresh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Basantala, Tehsil Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Premchand Chakresh S/o Madan Mahto Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Basantala Tehsil Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.10/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant-wife and respondent-husband got married on 05.03.2018 as per Hindu rituals. Both applicant and respondent lived together happily for about one year but after a year, the respondent started drinking and beating and abusing the applicant, for which community meeting was called for and respondent was advised to live properly. Thereafter due to ill treatment of the respondent, applicant left for her paternal home on 28.05.2018. Thereafter the applicant's father had filed an application to the community meeting of village Sajbahar about the dissolution of marriage on the reason that the respondent is physically and sexually incompetent. The meeting came to the conclusion that the divorce between the parties to be granted. Thereafter the application was filed under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from respondent. The applicant has also filed an application seeking interim maintenance from the Respondent-Husband. After the notice in the said matter was served upon the respondent, the applicant had filed the reply to the application filed under section 125 and reply to the interim maintenance application as well. Thereafter, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that the applicant was already a married lady earlier to entering 3 into marriage with the present respondent and therefore the present marriage is not valid and hence the respondent is not liable to maintain applicant. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the decision of not granting maintenance was passed without considering the facts and circumstances that the marriage subsisted for about a year and the spouse lived together for a term which entitles the wife for maintenance and the marriage was a valid one. The interim maintenance was not awarded which is erroneous and contrary to law, it is therefore liable to be quashed. Further, the subsistence of the previous marriage of the applicant was not proven. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact and was too ignorant of the fact that the divorce of the previous marriage of the respondent-husband was also not proved. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was accepted by their society and the "samaj" advised them to live together in response to the complaint that the respondent had ousted the applicant from the matrimonial house and advised the respondent to take her back. The learned family court erred in deciding the instant case by ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Badshah V. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse &Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 188, wherein it was held that, if a man and woman have been living together for a long time even without a valid marriage, the term of valid marriage entitling such woman to maintenance should not be 4 drawn and a woman in such a case should be entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Also, in the matter of Chanmuniya V. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha &Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 141, where it was held that the term "wife" occurring in section 125 of Cr.PC. is to be given wide interpretation and in the matter of Dwarika Prasad Sapathy V. Bidyut Prava Dixit &Anr. 1999 (7) SCC 675, held that "if the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouse. It was further held that once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed, it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure as per the Hindu rites." 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant was previously married to a person named Ashok Chakresh and she has not yet been duly divorced from her former husband Ashok Chakresh. Thus, the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant on 05.03.2018 is not valid. The applicant is not the legitimate married wife of the non-applicant and she has not been divorced from her former husband. Therefore, the applicant and non- 5 applicant have married each other without duly divorcing their previous husband and wife and by considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 7. Considering the submissions 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal