1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 158 of 2016 1. Smt. Nisha Yadav W/o Satish Yadav, aged about 21 years R/o Sangam Nagar, Bela Kachhar, P.S. Balko, Tahsil and District: Korba, Chhattisgarh, at Present Address Kududand Road, Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil and District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Yuvraj Yadav S/o Satish Yadav, aged about 4 months Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nisha Yadav, R/o Sangam Nagar, Bela Kachhar, P.S. BALCO, Tahsil and District: Korba C.G. At Present Address Kududand Road, Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil and District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants Versus Satish Yadav S/o Jeevan Lal Yadav, aged about 28 years R/o Sangam Nagar, Bela Kachhar, P.S. Balko, Tahsil and District: Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 16.06.2025 SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.06.19 14:23:13 +0530 2 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicants under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by Family Court, Bilaspur, C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 329 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case are that marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent as per Social Customs and both of them started living together. Out of their wedlock, a son Yuvraj was born. It is alleged that after the marriage, the behavior of the respondent has changed towards applicant No. 1 and he started quarreling and assaulting her by saying that he would do another marriage for more dowry. It is also alleged that respondent has not taken care of her child and ousted her from the house and therefore, she is compelled to live separately and by taking loans from her relatives, she is maintaining herself. It is further stated that the respondent is working as a Supervisor in BALCO Steel Plant and is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and he is also having 5 acres of agricultural land, therefore, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month be granted as maintenance to maintain themselves. Thereafter, on 20.06.2014, applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which was dismissed by the Family Court, Bilaspur as mentioned in Para 1. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the applicants are before this Court for setting aside the order passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). In reply, respondent denied all the allegations leveled against him by the applicant No. 1. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that findings recorded by the learned Family Court are perverse, illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent whereas, applicant No. 2 is the son of the respondent. To substantiate her pleadings, the applicant No. 1 has filed documentary evidence and despite that the Family Court ignored such evidence and straightaway dismissed the application for granting maintenance. The approach of the learned Family Court in not granting maintenance to the applicants is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, he urged that the impugned order may be set aside and the maintenance application may be allowed in favour of applicants, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court and submits that applicant No.1 is not his legally wedded wife and there is no evidence on record to show that respondent ever performed marriage with the applicant No.1 and that applicant No.2 is also not his son. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court was justified in rejecting the maintenance of the applicants by virtue of impugned order, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Nisha Yadav-applicant No. 1 has examined herself as AW-1 and has stated on oath that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent in temple and after that, she joined the company of the respondent and out of their wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born. She has stated 4 that after some time, behavior of respondent suddenly changed and he started quarreling and assaulting her and also used to tell her that he would perform another marriage and subsequently, ousted her and son from the house, which compelled her to live separately. In her deposition, she has stated that her child/Arman was born on 26.01.2014 and for proving the factum of birth of applicant No.2, she has filed Mother and Child Protection Card (Ex.P/1) and Child Protection Card (Ex.P-2) in order to show that applicant No.2 is the son of applicant No.1 and respondent. In cross-examination, she admitted that after filing of maintenance application, she has made a complaint against the respondent to the Superintendent of Police, Korba vide Ex.P/3. She further admitted that in her application, the name of her son/applicant No.2 is mentioned as Yuvraj. She also admitted that her marriage was performed with respondent in a Bela Kachhar Shiv temple and except them, no third party was present there and even priest was also not present there, except one photo which was set on fire by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that if two persons were only present at the time of marriage, then how the photo has been taken. Further, in the application of the applicants, there was no pleading regarding details of marriage i.e. date, year and place of marriage where the alleged marriage was performed. 7. In support of her evidence, she has examined one Sonkunwar as AW-2, who has admitted in her cross-examination that she has attended the wedding function of applicant No.1 and respondent where she has had food in the wedding function, but on the contrary, Applicant No. 1- Nisha Yadav has stated that at the time of their 5 marriage, no one was present in the temple. Therefore, the factum of marriage between the applicant No.1 and the respondent in the temple, as stated by applicant No.1/wife, is not reliable and does not corroborate with the statement of AW-2 Sonkunwar. 8. Satish Yadav- respondent has been examined himself as NAW-1, who has denied the marriage with applicant No.1 -Nisha Yadav. He has stated that the applicant No. 1 is a woman who is a member of Scheduled Tribe and she has been converted into a Christian Religion and if that be so, how it is possible that she performed marriage with him according to his social customs and rituals and that applicant No. 1-wife, being a neighbour, is taking undue advantage for getting maintenance. 9. From perusal of above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statement of AW-1 Nisha Yadav with respect to performance of alleged marriage with respondent and that, her evidence also does not corroborate with the statement of AW-2 Sonkuwar. Therefore, her evidence/AW-1 with respect to performance marriage with respondent is not reliable and does not inspire confidence. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show the details of marriage such as date, year and place of marriage and in absence of such details, it is difficult to hold that applicant No.1 is the wife of respondent. Furthermore, applicant No.1, in order to prove the paternity of son/applicant No.2, has filed Mother and Children Protection Card (Ex.P/1) and Mother and Child Card (Ex.P/2), however, a perusal of those documents would show that those printed cards do not bear any authority’s signature and the same has also not 6 been proved by the applicant No.1 through its issuing authority. Besides, Birth certificate (Ex.P/4) issued by the Registrar Municipal Corporation, Korba on 03.12.2014 would show the name of child as Arman Yadav, mother Nisha Yadav and father Satish Yadav, but it was issued after more than 6 months of the filing of maintenance application. It is worth mentioning here that applicant No. 1 has also not filed any application or affidavit of respondent regarding issuance of Birth Certificate of applicant No. 2. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the birth certificate (Ex.P-4), the name of the child is mentioned as Arman Yadav, whereas in the maintenance application, name of applicant No.1 has been mentioned as Yuvraj (Appliant No. 2) and there is no other name was mentioned and that, there are no such details mentioned about the date of birth and place of birth of Yuvraj in her maintenance application. That apart, respondent has also denied the fact that the Yuvraj is his son. Thus, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence on record, it would be difficult for this Court to rely upon the statement of applicant No.1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant No.2 is the biological son of the respondent. 10. The learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed evidence and has come to the conclusion in para 22 that prima facie it does not appear that applicant No.1 and respondent were married and applicant No.2 is the son of the respondent and if the applicants are separated from respondent, then respondent cannot be held liable for giving maintenance to them. The trial Court also taken a note of the fact that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of a summary nature, and in the present inquiry, the applicants have failed to establish their 7 claim. However, if applicant No.1 succeeds in obtaining a declaration from the competent Court regarding the legal status of applicant No.2 as the son of the respondent, then she shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh and has further come to the conclusion that since the applicants have failed to prove their case in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., they are not entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. Thus, from perusal of overall evidence coupled with the finding given by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the opinion that learned Family Court was justified in rejecting the application of the applicants for granting maintenance. 11. In view of what has been stated above, the present revision, being without any substance, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh