1 2025:CGHC:29545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 509 of 2017 Balbhadra S/o Shivprasad, Aged About 56 Years Caste Panika, R/o Ward No.9 Jhagrakhand, Paniha Dafai, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Ramvati W/o Balbhadra, Aged About 50 Years Caste Panika, R/o Ward No. 9 Sarkari Dafai, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station Jhagrakhand Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.03 11:14:02 +0530 2 order dated 10.04.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 58/2012, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondent, Ramvati, alleging that she is the wife of the applicant, who is a driver at the G.M. office earning a salary of around Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was stated that their marriage was solemnized in the year 1976, and out of their wedlock, two daughters, Radha and Shanti, were born, who are now married and residing in their matrimonial homes. It was further alleged that the applicant started ill-treating the respondent due to the fact that no male child was born out of their relationship. It was also alleged that the applicant is having an illicit relationship with a woman named Yashoda, whom he has kept as a mistress at his home, and although the applicant used to pay the respondent Rs. 4,000-5,000/- per month as maintenance, he stopped making these payments six months prior to the filing of the application. Therefore, it was prayed that maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month be granted to her. 4. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his written statement denying the contentions raised by the respondent, stating therein that he was married to Yashoda, but Yashoda left him and returned to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the applicant kept the respondent with him under Churi Pratha custom, and she is not his legally wedded wife. It was 3 further stated that the respondent was married to one Gangaram in the year 1982. The applicant also submitted that although he is a driver at S.E.C.L., he does not earn the salary as alleged by the respondent, and that he has six children from Yashoda, who is his wife, and he has other responsibilities towards them. Therefore, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent be dismissed. 5. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of this case. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant has denied the marriage with the respondent and has categorically stated that she is not his wife, and that his wife is Yashoda, from whom he has six children. Therefore, no maintenance can be awarded to the respondent. He submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in arriving at the finding that the respondent is the wife of the applicant, despite the fact that the applicant and other witnesses have categorically stated that the respondent is not the wife of the applicant, and that Yashoda is the wife of the applicant, with whom he has six children. This fact is also evident from the service record of the applicant (Ex. P/1), wherein the name of the applicant’s wife is mentioned as Yashoda. Therefore, the onus of proving the marital relationship 4 between the parties was on the respondent, but the trial court, in an erroneous manner, held that the respondent is the wife of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has retired from service and is receiving a pension of Rs. 13,230/- per month. He also has responsibilities towards his six children and wife. Out of these six children, three are married and three are pursuing college education, and their fees are also paid from the applicant’s pension. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay any maintenance to the non-applicant, who is not even his wife. For the reasons stated above, the applicant prays that the impugned order dated 10.04.2017 be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant in the present revision petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek