1 2025:CGHC:27063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 584 of 2023 Omprakash Sahu S/o Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mulmula, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 21 Years Through Natural Guardian, Mother Smt. Anita Sahu R/o Village Nagraudi, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sahil Sahu S/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 4 Years R/o Village Nagraudi, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, C.G. in MJC No.759 of 2022 parties being “Smt. Anita Sahu and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 another Vs. Omprakash Sahu ” dated 30.01.2023 and further be pleased to dismiss the application filed by non-applicants, in the ends of justice. 2. Briefs facts of the case are that the non-applicant no.1, Anita Sahu, lodged an FIR on 07.03.2017 at Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, bearing Crime No. 31/2017, alleging that the applicant, Omprakash Sahu, committed sexual intercourse with her on 11.11.2016 at her aunt’s house on the pretext of marriage. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC was filed on 01.04.2017, and the applicant was tried in Sessions Trial No. 24/2017. The learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Janjgir-Champa, acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 10.12.2018. Against the acquittal, non-applicant no.1 filed ACQA No. 280/2019, and the State also preferred CRMP No. 813/2019, which was allowed on 08.05.2019, registering ACQA No. 408/2019. Prior to the FIR, non- applicant no.1 executed an affidavit on 20.01.2017 stating that no relation existed between her and the applicant and that the marriage agreement dated 11.01.2017 at the police station was executed under pressure. On 04.03.2022, non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/- for non-applicant no. 2, her child) on the ground that she and the applicant were in a live-in relationship since January 2015, and non-applicant no. 2 was born from that relationship. The applicant appeared, raised preliminary objection on 07.12.2022 denying any relationship or marriage, and sought rejection of the application. The Family Court 3 rejected his objection on 30.01.2023 with costs, noting there is no provision for preliminary objection in Chapter IX Cr.P.C. The applicant filed detailed reply on 13.03.2023 again denying any live- in relationship or paternity of non-applicant no. 2, and prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. She further submits that the applicant never married non-applicant no. 1 nor lived in a live-in relationship with her, and it is not established that he is the biological father of non-applicant no. 2. In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it must prima facie appear that the parties were married or lived as husband and wife, which is not supported by any evidence in this case. Further a mere unsubstantiated claim of live-in relationship by non-applicant no. 1 does not give rise to a valid claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Earlier non- applicant no. 1 made allegations of rape against another person and later changed her stand against the applicant. She herself filed a complaint stating that the so-called marriage agreement was executed under coercion and that she had no relation with the applicant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the 4 applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly held that the objection raised by the applicant regarding the maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not tenable at this stage. The Court correctly observed that the non-applicant (woman) has claimed that she was in a live-in relationship with the applicant and that later, their marriage was solemnized by their families, resulting in the birth of their child. Whether or not the marriage took place and whether the applicant is the biological father of the child are matters of evidence that cannot be decided without proper trial and evidence. There is no provision under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 125 to 128) for filing preliminary objections. All objections must be raised in the detailed reply to the main application, as this is a summary proceeding. Thus, the Family Court rightly dismissed the preliminary objection with costs, as it was baseless, and directed that the applicant must pay the cost before participating in further proceedings, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 8. However, the present revision is dismissed with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under section 125 of CrPC as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan