1 2025:CGHC:27702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 656 of 2019 1. Smt. Parmila @ Balmati W/o Prahlad Aged About 25 Years Caste Bhatra, At Present R/o Village Babu Semra, Tahsil Jagdalpur, P.S. Nagarnar, Disrtict- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Prahlad S/o Boti Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Karitgaon, P.S. Nagarnar, Chowki Bakawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., 2. Kuldhar S/o Boti Aged About 45 Years Caste Bhatra, R/o Village Karitgaon, P.S. Nagarnar, Chowki Bakawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., 3. Smt. Kiran W/o Kuldhar Caste Bhatra, R/o Village Karitgaon, P.S. Nagarnar, Chowki Bakawand, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:47:00 +0530 2 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Bastar Place- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in MJC No.63/2017, whereby the learned Family Court was rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent No.1 on 12.05.2016 at village Karitgaon according to consent of both and thereafter, on 23.06.2013 with the presence of the family member of the society solemnized to marry according to custom of ritual of Tribes Bhatra Caste. After the marriage, the applicant peacefully enjoying their family life with joint family, but after some time, the respondents given to cruel treatment in the name of the demanding the dowry. Respondent No. 1 left the applicant at village Babu Semra, thereafter, he has not taken care of the applicant and expelled out from her house, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police Bastar, where offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been registered, it is further contended that the present respondent No. 1 solemnized his marriage to another lady namely Sangeeta, it is further contended that the applicant has no any source of income to maintain her, therefore, she is seeking maintenance amount from the amounting Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Family Court after framing the issues and recording evidence of the parties, passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, whereby the rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant holding that the applicant is not able to prove her case. Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to see that the marriage have already been proved despite of that, not awarded the maintenance amount is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to get the maintenance from the respondents. 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 respondent No.1/husband has stated that he came to know about the applicant's previous marriage after the applicant filed a report against him and has stated that he was not aware of it earlier. The applicant has also admitted in the cross-examination that she has not filed any maintenance or any other case against her former husband in any Court, which also makes it clear that the applicant has not filed any case regarding divorce earlier. The applicant has also not mentioned or stated in the pleadings about divorce from her former husband Vimal as per social or caste customs, nor has any mention been made in the main examination under oath, due to which the applicant is found to have failed to effect a legal divorce from her former husband. In the above analysis, the applicant has not been found to be the legal wife of respondent No.1- Prahlad. In such a situation, respondent No.1 is not found to have any responsibility for the maintenance of the applicant and in the above situation, it is also not proved that respondent No.1 4 Prahlad has neglected the maintenance of the applicant, due to which the applicant is not proved to be entitled to receive maintenance amount from respondent No.1, and the remaining respondents, who as per the statement of the applicant, are her brother-in-law and sister-in- law in relation, in such a situation, in the circumstances of their case, when the husband Prahlad claimed by the applicant is alive, in the said situation, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not found to be responsible for the maintenance of the applicant in the present case. It has also not been proved that respondent No.1 is also responsible for maintenance towards her, in such situation also, the responsibility of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain the applicant in any manner is neither acceptable nor proven. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti