1 2025:CGHC:13988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 382 of 2025 Prembai Lodhi W/o Shri Barikram Lodhi Aged About 53 Years R/o Ramnagar, Gali Number 08, Near Kaai Talab Thana - Chowki Chikhali Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Barikram Lodhi S/o Late Shri Dasharath Lodhi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Joratarai Post - Dundera Thana - Utai Tahsil And Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/03/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.156/2023, whereby the Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance filed by the wife/applicant. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR 2 2. Brief facts of this case are that as per applicant her marriage took place on 16/07/1996 and she was ousted from home in the year 2023 and since then she is residing with her daughter Aarti Verma born from her earlier husband Late Biselal. The applicant had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. with the averment that she is unable to maintain herself she is doing household work of others but its not sufficient to maintain herself therefore requested that husband/respondent is earning well Rs.5,000/- per month maintenance may be awarded. 3. After service of notice non-applicant appeared before the family court, filed the written statement by denying applicant as her wife rather stated that she is her mother in law's sister. He has a wife namely Rahibai who resides in Amlidih and he satys with his family in every festivals. Applicant was neighbor in his joratarai residence she used to visit in that house she was married with biselal and has a daughter with that marriage namely aarti verma after demise of biselal she married with ramshary Lodhi and has a daughter namely Aasha verma. Further stated that he is old age man not able to maintain himself therefore stays home with his family and requested for dismissal of application. 4. Learned Family Court framed as many as 4 issues, after filling of the reply by the non-applicant recorded the evidence of parties, on the basis of the evidence recorded the finding that the applicant failed to prove the that she is legally wedded wife of applicant, hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned family court erred in passing the order impugned by dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the applicant/wife holding that marriage is not proved. He further contended that the learned family court has passed the order impugned only on the basis of the oral statements of the respondent's witnesses discarded the evidence of applicant. The learned family court has not considered that they lived as husband and wife for considerable long period. Learned court below discarded the evidence produced by the applicant regarding Marrige Ikraranama of 16/07/1996. It is further contended that the learned court below recorded the finding in para 24 that non applicant's marriage was well within the knowledge of applicant she was well aware of the fact that he has children so their marriage even if it took place is illegal therefore not being legally wedded wife she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the appropriate order of maintenance in favor of applicant may kindly be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to present status of living, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC on the ground that even if we assume 4 for the sake of argument that both the parties had signed a written agreement to accept each other as husband and wife, but it is important that it is also mentioned in the agreement that the party has a first wife and children. Thus, the applicant was well aware that her sister's daughter Rahibai and the non- applicant were already married and his wife was also alive, then it cannot be assumed that both the parties are legally husband and wife. Thus it is not proved that the applicant is the married wife of the non-applicant. 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant