1 2025:CGHC:32631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 569 of 2021 1 - Smt. Jaimaniya W/o Bachan Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khadgaon P. S. Khadgaon, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Priyansh S/o Bachan Singh Aged About 1 Years Through Its Mother Smt. Jaimaniya, R/o Village Khadgaon, P. S. Khadgaon, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Bachan Singh S/o Shri Ramdhani Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Majhauli P. S. Khadgaon, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “The applicants prays for the following relief from this Hon'ble Court; RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 51/2020 pending by Family Court, Manendragarh District Koriya. 2. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set- aside/quash order dated 15.07.2021 passed by Family Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case. 51/2020 (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased to grant the maintenance as prayed in the application of the court below. 3. Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the applicants.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 07.12.2020 before the Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), seeking monthly maintenance of ₹23,000/-. As per their case, applicant No. 1 (wife) and the non- applicant entered into a valid customary marriage on 02.07.2018 through local rituals (exchange of bangles), this being their second marriage. It was alleged that the non-applicant regularly accused applicant No. 1 of having extramarital affairs, physically assaulted her, and even refused to accept applicant No. 2 (their son) as his child after his birth on 11.07.2019. applicant No. 1 further claimed she was thrown out during pregnancy and had to manage childbirth alone. The applicants stated they are unable to maintain themselves 3 and are financially dependent on the non-applicant. After hearing both parties and recording evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 15.07.2021, granted ₹2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 (minor son) but rejected applicant No. 1’s claim for maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have filed this petition, stating that the impugned order is contrary to law and the facts on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous both in fact and in law, as it fails to properly appreciate the documentary evidence on record regarding the non-applicant’s income (Annexure P/3) and misinterprets the legal provisions governing interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court overlooked the fact that the applicant has no independent means of livelihood and is entirely dependent on the non-applicant for survival. Further, the Family Court failed to consider the binding guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which recognize a wife’s right to maintenance proportionate to her husband’s income and standard of living generally up to 25% of his earnings. Moreover, the dismissal of applicant No. 1’s claim merely on the ground that the non-applicant has other dependents is unjustified. The maintenance amount awarded to applicant No. 2 (minor son) is also unreasonably low and fails to meet even basic needs in today’s circumstances, making the impugned order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4 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 has rightly passed its order dated 15.07.2021 after due consideration of the facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case. The Court carefully evaluated the nature of the alleged marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant, which, although claimed to be solemnized through local customs (exchange of bangles), lacked the legal sanctity and sufficient proof required under law for a valid Hindu marriage. Furthermore, the allegations made by applicant No. 1 regarding cruelty and denial of paternity were not substantiated with reliable evidence. Considering the absence of concrete proof of a legally valid marriage and her ability to maintain herself, the Court rightly rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1. However, recognizing the welfare and rights of the minor child (applicant No. 2), the Court judiciously awarded ₹2,000/- per month for his upkeep, striking a fair balance between the pleadings and the financial obligations of the non- applicant. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 5 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 Rahul Dewangan