1 2025:CGHC:27420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 754 of 2025 Megha Sethe W/o Gitendra Jangde Aged About 25 Years R/o Boriyakhurd, Shraddha Vihar Colony, P.S. Tikarapara, Tehsil - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gitendra Jangde S/o Bhushan Ram Jangde Aged About 28 Years R/o P.W.S. Colony Civil Lines, Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No.454/2023, whereby the learned Family Court was rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that there was a love affair going on between the applicant/wife and the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:32:18 +0530 2 respondent/husband since two years before marriage, after which the respondent married the applicant on 06.05.2021 at Angarmoti Mata Mandir Gangrel, District Dhamtari (CG) and accepted her as his wife, since then till today the respondent and the applicant are husband and wife. After marrying the applicant, the respondent kept establishing marital relations with the applicant by talking to his family members after one month and saying that he would take her to his house. After one month, when the applicant asked to take her home, the respondent kept postponing taking the applicant to his house by making one or the other excuse, after some time the respondent blocked the applicant's mobile number and stopped contacting the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the applicant/wife is a legally wedded wife and she has also submitted photograph to support the contention of marriage between them which was not denied by the respondent. He further submits that the in MCRCA No. 11/2022, in which the respondent was granted bail by this Court, he admitted that he was married to the applicant. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant filed this Criminal Revision to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 for awarding the maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife had lodged a report against the respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under Crime No. 539/2021 of Police Station Dhamtari. The said report has been lodged on 19.12.2021. Whereas according to the applicant, her marriage took place on the alleged date 3 06.05.2021. It is also mentioned that when she used to ask the respondent for marriage, the respondent used to refuse to marry. Thus, in the complaint made by the applicant after the alleged marriage, there is no mention of the fact of her marriage with the respondent and the said complaint has been presented along with the charge sheet under Section 376 IPC, the applicant has also recorded a statement before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which it is mentioned that the respondent had physical relations with her by luring her with marriage. For this reason, she was prosecuted under Section 376 IPC. It is also worth observing that no other facts regarding the marriage are on record. Therefore, it is not clear from the above facts that the applicant was married to the respondent and the applicant is the married wife of the respondent. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti