1 2025:CGHC:34602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 697 of 2025 Vikram Kumar Singh S/o. Late Lal Bahadur Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village - New Miners Colony, Bhatgaon Colliery, P.S. Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Rupali Singh W/o. Vikram Kumar Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o. Bishrampur, P.S. Bishrampur, Tahsil - Latori, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed, that in view of the above, the impugned order dated 25/03/2025 may kindly be set-aside rejecting the application under section 125 of CrPC with suitable directions.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant, Rupali Singh, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.), stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant Vikram Kumar Singh, and their marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2014 as per Hindu rituals. She alleged that after marriage, the applicant started ill-treating her, was addicted to alcohol, and frequently abused her in an inebriated state, due to which she left the matrimonial home and began living separately. She further claimed that the applicant had remarried one Hemant Kunwar Singh and was employed in SECL, earning approximately ₹60,000– 70,000 per month, thus capable of maintaining her. Upon notice, the applicant appeared, and after hearing both sides and evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the application and granted monthly maintenance of ₹4,000 to the non-applicant, which has been challenged in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance is arbitrary, one-sided, and legally unsustainable, as it is riddled with serious anomalies and procedural irregularities. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the marital relationship between the parties was not conclusively established through cogent and clinching evidence, and the order appears to have been passed merely on presumptions and conjectures. There is a complete lack of evidence to prove desertion or cruelty on the part of the applicant, and the allegation regarding the solemnization of a second marriage with one Hemant Kunwar Singh also remains 3 unsubstantiated. The finding of cruelty, being a matter of evidence, cannot be based on assumptions, which the Court failed to properly evaluate. Moreover, the Family Court overlooked the legal principle that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a matter of sympathy or charity, but a statutory right that arises only upon proper establishment of entitlement. The Court also ignored crucial admissions, omissions, and contradictions in the non-applicant’s evidence, particularly regarding the factum of marriage, which remains unproved. Therefore, without legal recognition of her status as a wife, the non-applicant is not entitled to any maintenance, and the order granting the same is based on notional and unfounded considerations, warranting interference by this Court. 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 learned Family Court, Surajpur, has rightly passed the order granting maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to the non-applicant, Rupali Singh, after due consideration of the facts, pleadings, and evidence presented by both parties. The non-applicant clearly established that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, Vikram Kumar Singh, through consistent statements and supporting evidence, including the date and details of the marriage solemnized on 14.05.2014 as per Hindu rites. Her allegations of ill-treatment, habitual intoxication, and abusive conduct by the applicant were uncontroverted and substantiated during the proceedings, justifying 4 her decision to leave the matrimonial home. Furthermore, the applicant’s earning capacity being employed with SECL and drawing a substantial monthly salary was neither denied nor disproved, strengthening the non-applicant’s claim for maintenance. The Family Court, after examining all aspects in accordance with the law laid down under Section 125 Cr.P.C., rightly held that the non-applicant, being a legally dependent spouse living separately for justifiable reasons, is entitled to receive maintenance to ensure her financial sustenance and dignity. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal