1 2025:CGHC:35733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 458 of 2023 1 - Smt. Budhara Bai Sahu W/o Tularam Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Jhalam, Thana / Tahsil - Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhuraj Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Jhalam, Thana / Tahsil - Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tularam Sahu S/o Khamman Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Khamhi, Thana / Tahsil - Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and maintenance amount may kindly be allowed suitably, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant are husband and wife, their second marriage having been solemnized around 21 years ago at Village Jhalam as per community customs. It is alleged that due to continuous harassment by the non-applicant, the applicant No. 1 started residing with her parents, and the non-applicant neither took care of their son (applicant No. 2) nor provided any maintenance. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. It is further stated that the non-applicant is a big farmer earning approximately Rs. 4–5 lakhs annually but still neglected to support them, forcing the applicants to live in penury. Despite notice, the non-applicant appeared before the Family Court and denied the averments, contending that since this was the second marriage, the applicant was not a legally wedded wife and hence not entitled to maintenance. The applicant examined herself to prove her claims, whereas the non-applicant only filed a reply. However, the Family Court dismissed the application despite sufficient evidence, leading to the present petition seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in holding that applicant No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, despite the non-applicant 3 himself admitting that he married her by performing customary rituals, including wearing bangles, and lived with her for several years. Such long cohabitation raises a presumption of valid marriage, as held in Dwarika Prasad v. Bidyut Prava (1999) 7 SCC 675. Furthermore, in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 141, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must receive a broad and liberal interpretation to include cases where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period, and strict proof of marriage should not be insisted upon to grant maintenance. The Family Court failed to appreciate this settled position of law and the evidence on record, and wrongly denied maintenance to the applicant despite the non-applicant’s substantial income from farming (approximately Rs. 4–5 lakhs annually). Hence, the applicant is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, rightly dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. Though the applicant alleged 4 harassment and claimed that the non-applicant had neglected to maintain her and their son, she failed to establish a legally valid marriage with the non-applicant, the relationship being admittedly a second marriage performed only as per custom without proof of compliance with statutory requirements. The non-applicant consistently denied the legality of the marriage, and the applicant produced no documentary or cogent evidence to rebut this contention. In the absence of proof of a valid marriage, the applicant was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, therefore, committed no error in law or fact in dismissing the application, and its order is fully justified and sustainable. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan