1 2025:CGHC:48796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 507 of 2021 Memwati Mehra W/o Rambhushan Chandravanshi Aged About 35 Years Occupation Housewife , R/o Darri Para, Kawardha, Police Station and Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rambhushan Chandravanshi S/o Shri Munnaram Chandravanshi Aged About 37 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Village Laghan Pandariya, Post Chachedi, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate (For Legal Aid) For Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.215/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant's marriage to the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.24 16:48:52 +0530 2 respondent was solemnized on 05.07.2016, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur. However, the respondent began harassing and physically abusing the applicant shortly after the marriage. During the respondent's arrest in a registered criminal case, his family members deserted the applicant and pressured her to leave the matrimonial home. Upon the respondent's release on bail, the applicant returned to her matrimonial home, but the respondent and his family members continued to abuse her, prompting her to lodge a report at Pipariya Police Station. Counseling led to the respondent taking the applicant back, and they started residing in a rental house in Ramnagar, Kawardha. Tragically, on 13.10.2017, the respondent and his friend, Khuman Singh Thakur, committed gang rape against the applicant. When she attempted to file an FIR, the police initially tried to settle the case, citing it as a family dispute. Only after the applicant sent a copy of her report to the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police was the report registered. Subsequently, the respondent started ill-treating and deserting the applicant. Given her lack of education, health issues, and inability to earn a living, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance before the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha), registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 215/2018. The respondent claimed the applicant wasn't his legally wedded wife, alleging she was married to another person, Nirpat Singh. He also claimed to be earning poorly and requested the application be rejected. After examining witnesses and reviewing evidence, the trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant wasn't the 3 respondent's legally wedded wife. This decision has led to the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. The judgment passed by the Family Court is bad in law, perverse, illegal, and contrary to established legal principles. In fact, the respondent himself contacted a person named Nirpat Singh, who has no relation whatsoever with the applicant. Upon discovering that Nirpat Singh’s wife was also named Memwati, the respondent threatened him with dire consequences if he did not give a false statement in his favor before the court. Under such intimidation, Nirpat Singh falsely supported the respondent’s version before the trial Court. Nirpat Singh later lodged a complaint against the respondent at Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham. The applicant had already provided a copy of this complaint to her counsel, but she was unaware that some documents were not filed before the trial Court. The applicant reiterates that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage certificate has already been filed before the Family Court and is marked as Exhibit A-1. The applicant is approximately 35 years old, whereas Nirpat Singh is around 67 years of age, making it implausible for the applicant to have been married to him. The respondent, merely to evade his legal responsibility of maintaining his wife, fabricated a false story and misled the court by giving false testimony. The applicant prays that appropriate criminal proceedings be initiated against the respondent for perjury and 4 misleading the Court. The learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is well-educated, employed in a private job, and also earns income from agricultural land. Despite this, the trial Court rejected the applicant's claim without proper judicial application of mind. Therefore, the impugned judgment may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance from her husband if she is unable to maintain herself and the husband refuses or neglects to provide such maintenance. In the present case, the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and the marriage between the applicant and the respondent falls under the category of a void marriage. Furthermore, the applicant and the respondent have not resided together as husband and wife for a substantial period of time. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent/husband. Hence, the application 5 filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected with respect to applicant/wife. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned within a week for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti