1 2025:CGHC:32655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 721 of 2019 Kamlesh S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 35 Years Caste- Suryawanshi, R/o Village- Mahka, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Brihaspati Bai W/o Kamlesh Khunte Caste- Suryawanshi, R/o Village- Sonsari, Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2017, the marriage of applicant and non-applicant was performed before Manka Dai Mandir and thereafter the marriage was registered before the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Marriage Officer & Collector and the marriage certificate was given. After marriage, the applicant and non- applicant were performed marital relationship in the house of applicant's sister at Village Bhilauni and after four months of marriage, the applicant has left the non-applicant at State Bank of India, Chandipara, Pamgarh, from where she return her parental house and thereafter lodged report at Police Station, Pamgarh, where the applicant was called and the applicant had admitted to keep the non-applicant, but he did not take back her. It was further submitted by the non-applicant that the she has no source of income, whereas the applicant is posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I and getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, except this, he is having agricultural land, thereby getting sufficient income, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the non-applicant. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance. 4. Upon serving notice, the applicant herein filed reply, whereby denied the allegation and submitted that the there is no legal and valid marriage between him and non-applicant and the non- applicant is not the legally wedded wife of applicant. It further submitted by the applicant that the non-applicant had lodged a report, on which, the offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the applicant and during pendency of criminal case, the non-applicant has fraudulently obtained signature of applicant in application for marriage and on the basis of same, she obtained marriage certificate, however there is no marriage 3 performed between the applicant and non- applicant, therefore the non-applicant is not entitled any maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2019, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that undisputedly there is no marriage between the applicant and non-applicant, therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. The non-applicant is well educated lady and she was working as Teacher in Anurag Higher Secondary School, Mulmula and getting monthly salary. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that only a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant had lodged a report, on which, the offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered against the applicant and during pendency of criminal case, the non-applicant has fraudulently obtained signature of applicant in application for marriage by putting pressure upon him and on the basis of same, she obtained marriage certificate, however there is no marriage performed between the applicant and non-applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there is no relation between the applicant and non-applicant as husband and wife. Therefore, the learned Family Court has passed 4 the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. 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, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4000/- 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal