1 2025:CGHC:31062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 601 of 2025 Gulab Singh Dahire S/o Shivprasad Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Baijalpur, Police Station - Chilfi, Tehsil - Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Yogita Dahire W/o Gulab Singh Dahire Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Baihakapa (Devri), Tehsil And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, learned counsel the applicant and none for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.08 12:58:38 +0530 2 Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Family Court Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 225/2024, in the interest of Justice.” 3. As per prosecution story in brief is that non applicant Yogita was married along with applicant on 28.04.2015 in accordance with the customs hindu community and out of the conjugal relation between them three children's has been born who are at present at present living mother. That, the application after some time of the marriage the applicant has alleged had started to beat and assault to the non applicant and her family members and had also filthy language in the name of dowry and it has also been alleged that the applicant had started to harass the non applicant because the applicant was doubting character of the applicant and the applicant has alleged had beaten the applicant and it has also mention that the applicant was working at Rojgar Sahayak and was also had electronic shop and has alleged it has also been mentioned the applicant agricultural earned Rs. 5 lacks in every year and had demanded 30,000/-amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month.That, the applicant thereafter denied the contents of the application filed by the non applicant and had also disclosed in her reply that there is no custom for grant of dowry in his society and he was alleged to mentioned that the non applicant was used to talk Raju Dhitlahre in a mobile and 3 was not used to performed his work and had also harassed her mother in law and father in law by having told the mother of the husband at Tonhi and had also stated that non applicant was always used to be involved in talking with Raju on mobile and in his absence was used to call Raju at her home and that in support of the application filed by the non applicant she has examined three witnesses whereas the applicant husband had examined herself and two witnesses support of his namely Shiv Prasad and Bermann Lalji Verman and since the impugned order passed on 20.03.2025 in MJC No. 225/2024 impugned order passed on 20.03.2025 is purely perverse and justice and against the principle of law and account on which the applicant husband has filed this criminal revision under Section 94 of the Family Court Act before this Hon'ble Court on the basis of grounds mentioned below. After hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the application and granted Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and thus deserves to be set aside. The Family Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the non-applicant was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is on record that the family members of the non-applicant themselves 4 refused to proceed with the marriage, and the non-applicant was residing at her parental home, not with the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a valid marital relationship and cohabitation, the non-applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Family Court erred in awarding Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance, which is excessive and disproportionate to the applicant’s financial condition, and the order thus calls for interference and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasoned, and in accordance with law. The court rightly appreciated the facts and evidence on record, including the affidavit of marriage dated 28.04.2015, and the cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife. The non-applicant credibly established that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, which compelled her to return to her parental home. Despite the applicant’s denial of the marriage, the overall evidence including the affidavit, ceremonial rites, and the period of cohabitation supported the conclusion that a valid marital relationship existed between the parties. The Family Court was therefore correct in holding that the non- applicant is legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the award of Rs. 4,000/- per month is fair and 5 reasonable considering the circumstances. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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 vaibhav