1 2025:CGHC:36838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 559 of 2024 Akash @ Nandkumar Khute S/o Lacchram Khute Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bhalwahi Lagra, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Mo. No. 8103521892 ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Uttra Banjare W/o Akash @ Nandkumar Khute Aged About 34 Years R/o Chhota Durga Mandir Gali, Dipupara, Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) (Cause title taken from the case information system) For Applicant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 further be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 281/2019, parties "Smt. Uttra Banjare Vs. Akash @ Nandkumar Khute" (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant submits that she and applicant first came into contact through Facebook in the year 2014. The applicant expressed his love and proposed marriage. Between 2014 and 2017, the applicant repeatedly approached the non-applicant’s parents with a marriage proposal and convinced them. Consequently, in April 2017, the non-applicant and applicant solemnized their marriage with mutual consent at the Mahamaya Temple. After the marriage, they began living as husband and wife in a rented house. However, in January 2018, the applicant suddenly left the house without informing the non-applicant and added her phone number to the rejection list (blocked his number). The non-applicant tried to trace the applicant by visiting his workplaces, but was unable to locate him. She then informed his parents and relatives, but they denied knowing anything about the marriage. They insulted her and told her to leave, stating that Nandkumar’s marriage had already been fixed in Balodabazar district. Thereafter, the non-applicant then approached the Sarpanch of the applicant’s native village, Bhalwahi, who intervened and advised the applicant’s family. As a result, the applicant accepted the marriage in front of his family and village members, 3 and acknowledged the non-applicant as his wife. A written agreement was executed between the parties to the effect that both families would, with mutual consent and as per social customs, perform the marriage again at Giroudpuri. After this, the non- applicant was taken to the applicant’s native home where they began living together as husband and wife. The non-applicant stayed at the applicant’s home for six months, out of which the applicant stayed with her for about one month. Thereafter, he again suddenly left without informing her. The non-applicant once again filed a complaint with the applicant’s head office. Due to lack of financial hardship and circumstances, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court. It is further alleged that the applicant is employed with the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Second Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur, and draws a monthly salary of ₹40,000/-. Therefore, the applicant sought monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/- from the applicant. 4. In his reply, the applicant has denied all the allegations made in the application. He has stated that the non-applicant is not his legally wedded wife. He further claimed that the non-applicant is working as a Program Officer in an NGO located in Shahdol District, Madhya Pradesh, and draws a monthly salary of ₹40,000/-. The applicant, who is employed with the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, also earns ₹40,000/- per month. 4 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8000/- per month to the non applicant as an amount of maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by learned Family Court is bad in law perverse, erroneous, illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record, thus liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the non-applicant failed to prove her marriage with applicant, despite learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount, is contrary to the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court ignored the admission in her cross examination that “She lodged the complaint under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code at police station Tarbahar Bilaspur against the applicant and she living with applicant in live in relationship", despite learned Family Court concluded that non-applicant is the wife of the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal