1 2025:CGHC:28636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 31 of 2019 Smt. Hemlata Sahu W/o Umesh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 28 Years D/o Amruram Sahu R/o Village Madai ,police Station Seepat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Rameshwar Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Beeja, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/wife being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.575/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the non- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.30 15:09:43 +0530 2 applicant/respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2015 by Hindu Rites and Ritual. The applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur for maintenance and the contention of the applicant was that after three months of the marriage, her husband i.e. non-applicant, her in-laws and other family members used cruelty on her and demanded a car from her and also the non- applicant after drinking used to beat her and abused her. After her pregnancy, on 03.04.2016, the non-applicants and other family members have brutally beaten her and then the incident was reported by her to the Woman Cell, Bilaspur, where the respondent has refused to keep her, therefore, she is residing along with her parents and she is also not getting any maintenance. The applicant has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and the respondent is running a general store and cloth store and his income is about 30,000 – Rs.35000/- per month and he has also 15 acres of agricultural land, thus, application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant for maintenance but after hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the applicant is the wife of the respondent. The learned Family Court has wrongly held that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent though the applicant has duly proved that she is legally wedded wife of respondent, therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law. It is further 3 submitted that the applicant has categorically stated in her statement that she has no knowledge about the first marriage of the respondent but the learned Family Court has wrongly disbelieved the same and rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Further, the Family Court has also wrongly held that the applicant is also married with one Vinod in the year 2006 and she has not taken divorce with him. It is not disputed that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/respondent, she has no source of income, thus, the applicant is entitled to received maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month from the non-applicant/respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the applicant/Smt. Hemlata Sahu is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/Umesh Kumar Sahu, and therefore, it has been held by the learned Family Court that the applicant is not entitled to receive any maintenance amount from the non-applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the present 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