1 2025:CGHC:42820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 462 of 2023 Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Khelar Singh Aged About 61 Years Occupation Service Posted As Assistant Engineer Office Of Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Sukma, Residence Of Qtr. No. H-8, Premnagar Irrigation Colony Sukma, Thana, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhatisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Amrika Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Gitera, Thana And Tahsil Palari, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (W/o Raghuveer Singh Wrongly Mentioned In The Petition As Well As Order) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.469/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent along with her daughter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that her marriage with the applicant took place in the year 1980-81 at Village Gitkera and out of the wedlock one female child was born. It is alleged that in 1987, after obtaining a government job as Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department at Sukma, the applicant left her at the village and thereafter, in 1990, abandoned her and their child without any reason. Since then, he has been residing at Sukma with another woman and has not taken care of them. The respondent further claimed that the applicant is earning a handsome salary from government service and also derives income from 9 acres of agricultural land, yet he has neglected to maintain them despite having sufficient means, whereas she has no independent source of livelihood. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned order of maintenance as the applicant had categorically denied the alleged marriage and relationship, and the respondent failed to prove a valid marriage through oral or documentary evidence. The earlier application 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent had already been dismissed and confirmed in revision, and her civil suit No. 17-A/2016 was also dismissed, the findings of which are binding, yet the trial Court ignored them. The Court further acted contrary to law by proceeding ex parte against the applicant at a stage when his presence was not required, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to lead evidence. The order is contrary to Section 125 Cr.P.C. and settled principles of law, as the entitlement of maintenance can arise only after proving a valid marriage. The trial Court also failed to appreciate the applicant’s documents, affidavit, and admissions elicited in cross-examination of the respondent witnesses, and wrongly relied on unproved statements recorded during inquiry, treating them as admission. Hence, the impugned order is perverse, against the evidence and law, and deserves to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing the the evidence of respondent and the supporting witnesses, along with the admissions elicited in cross-examination and the unchallenged documentary evidence on record, it clearly 4 stands established that respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It has further been established that the applicant, without divorcing her, contracted a second marriage and abandoned her, thereby giving her sufficient reason to live separately. The evidence also shows that she has no independent means of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil