1 2025:CGHC:32638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 746 of 2020 1 - Smt. Urmila Bai Yadav W/o Shri Khemraj Yadav Aged About 32 Years By Caste- Rawat, R/o Village- Kurubhata, P. S. Patewa, Tahsil And Civil- Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Karishma Yadav Do Shri Khemraj Yadav Aged About 2 Years R/o Village- Kurubhata, P. S. Patewa, Tahsil And Civil- Revenue District And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Khemraj Yadav S/o Shri Tesingh Yadav Aged About 28 Years By Caste- Rawat, R/o Village- Kurubhata, P. S. Patewa, Tahsil And Civil- Revenue District And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.92/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1, a widow, married the respondent, Khemraj Yadav, in a social ceremony with the presence of villagers about two years prior to filing the application. After the marriage, the applicant and the respondent started living together in village Kurrabhatha. They had a daughter, Karishma Yadav, born on 11.07.2018. Initially, the respondent and the applicant lived together for about two months, but thereafter, the respondent and his family members started harassing the applicant physically and mentally, calling her she is from a different caste and a widow. The respondent's parents opposed the applicant's living with the respondent and refused to let her enter the house or cook food. When the applicant tried to do household chores, the respondent's parents would beat her. The applicant reported the matter to the police station, but no action was taken. She then approached the Superintendent of Police and later filed an application with the Family Counseling Center. The applicant further stated that due to the harassment, she has become weak and unable to work. She has no source of income and is living a life of despair. In contrast, the respondent owns about 3-4 acres of agricultural land, earning an annual income of approximately Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also works as a cattle herder in the village, earning an additional Rs. 3 1,00,000/- per year. The applicant requested that the respondent be directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply denying the allegations as alleged by the applicant No.1. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated January 29, 2020, passed by the Learned Family Court rejecting the application for maintenance is flawed due to material illegality, perversity, and irregularity, rendering it invalid in the eyes of the law. The order is based on incorrect findings and fails to properly appreciate the evidence presented. He further submits that the respondent forcibly threatened the petitioner and kicked her out of the matrimonial home. The applicant proved her case regarding the marriage, supported by witnesses P.W.02 Prem Sahu and P.W.03 Santram, and gave birth to applicant No. 2 on July 11, 2018. Documentary evidence, including Ex.P/01 to 05, Ex.D/01, D/02, and the DNA report (Article-A/01), was submitted. Despite that, the Learned Family Court rejected the application. He also submits that the respondent failed to produce any evidence regarding desertion without animus deserendi on the part of the applicant. The respondent merely submitted a reply denying the allegations and averments made by the applicants, contesting the maintenance claim under Section 125 of the CrPC. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants observing that the applicants filed a report against the respondent at Police Station Patewa on 08.01.2018. Based on that report, counseling was conducted by the Women Cell, Mahasamund, in the presence of both parties. During the counseling, the respondent, Khemraj Yadav, admitted to having a relationship with the applicant. However, even if we assume that both parties are husband and wife, the DNA test report clearly indicates that applicant No. 2 is not the daughter of the respondent. This suggests that the applicant is living in an adulterous relationship, therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. From the above evidence and analysis, the Family Court concluded that the applicant has failed to prove that she (applicant No. 1) is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that applicant No. 2 is their legitimate child. 5 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil