1 2025:CGHC:27404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 493 of 2018 Girja Dewangan W/o Rajkumar Dewangan Aged About 30 Years Occupation Aganbadi Worker, R/o Thakur Bija, P. S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rajkumar Dewangan S/o Radheshyam Dewangan Aged About 33 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Purana Market, Near Shiv Sarovar, Infront Of Parmeshwari Mandir, Tahsil Than Khamhariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC No.18/2016, whereby the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, alleging that the marriage of applicant and respondent was solemnized at Gayatri Mandir in the year 2008. It was pleaded that the parent's house of the applicant is situated at Village Thakurbija and where her property is also situated. The respondent residing with the applicant for the sake of property and he sold some of the property and thereafter he went along-with two children to his village Than Khamhariya. It was further pleaded that the respondent had made vague allegation over the character of applicant connecting her to her brother Sant Patel. Further he harassed her and threatened her to death. It was pleaded that the husband/respondent has neglected maintaining the applicant and he has questioned her character, hence, claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month. 4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the contention raised in the application and denied the fact of questioning the character and allegation of assault. It was stated by him that the mother of applicant said Sant Patel mistreated the respondent. It was further alleged that the relation between Sant Patel and the applicant is not justified. It was further stated that he has been pleaded that he has been ousted from the house by the mother of applicant and Sant Patel. It was further pleaded that the applicant 3 is Aganbadi Worker has not source of income and has to look- after two children, whereas respondent works as a tailor. Learned family Court after considering the evidence on record and the documents exhibited, rejected the maintenance application holding that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent and she residing separately without any reason. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has committed a grave error in deciding the issue regarding the marriage between the applicant and the respondent. Since the respondent never disputed the marriage in his written statement, framing an issue about whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent is incorrect, and the finding based on it is also erroneous. The Family Court failed to understand that in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, the fact of marriage does not need to be proved strictly. When a party does not dispute the marriage, the court should not frame an issue on this matter. He further submits that learned Family Court's rejection of the application based on the applicant not being the legally wedded wife is illegal since the respondent never disputed the marriage. The court's finding that the applicant is living separately without sufficient reason is also illegal, given the husband's vague allegations about her character, which constitute a valid reason for separation. The Court failed to appreciate that even apprehension of physical assault or mental cruelty is a 4 sufficient reason for a wife to live separately and claim maintenance. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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 evidence regarding the sources of income, the applicant and witness, Pramila, claim that the respondent is a healthy individual capable of physical labor and should pay Rs.5,000 as maintenance. In contrast, the respondent and witness, Radheshyam, state that the applicant is an Anganwadi worker earning approximately Rs.4,000 (later increased to Rs.5,000) as honorarium, supported by documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. The respondent claims to be struggling to support his minor children through tailoring work. After considering these facts the Family Court came to the conclusion that applicant is an Anganwadi worker earning Rs.5,000, capable of supporting herself, whereas, respondent is a 5 capable person earning through tailoring. Since the applicant is not the legally wedded wife, she is not entitled to maintenance. 9. Considering the submissions 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil