1 2025:CGHC:29544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 665 of 2017 Smt. Sarojini Pujari W/o Shri Darkeshwar Pujari Aged About 30 Years R/o Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Bhagat Singh Ward No. 10, Barsur Vikas Khand Geedam, District Dantewada, Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dakeshwar Pujari S/o Shri Bansingh Pujari Aged About 34 Years R/o Barsur, Tehsil Gidam, District Dantewada, Presently Posted At Through The Commandant, 16th Battalion Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, South Bastar, District – Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 17/2016, whereby the learned trial Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, on the ground that RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the applicant has filed to prove a valid marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that in the year 2004 when the respondent herein was posted as Nagar Sainik in Dantewada the applicant met the respondent and thereafter both became friends and both of them came closer to each other. The respondent herein used to write letters to the applicant and on that basis the applicant used to meet the respondent. After sometime the respondent promised the applicant that he would get married to her and on that pretext made sexual intercourse with the applicant. On 07.07.2006 the applicant and the respondent herein as per the Hindu Rites and rituals got married and as evidence thereof also executed an affidavit before the Notary. Immediately after the marriage the respondent herein asked the applicant to live with her parents and as soon as he gets an official quarter he would take her along. When the respondent did not take her for sufficient long time the petitioner was forced to make a Written complaint before the Superintendent of Police Dantewada. On mediation being done by the Superintendent of Police the respondent promised to keep the applicant as wife. In the meanwhile, the respondent was transferred to 16th Battalion Narayanpur and thereafter the respondent did not contact the applicant at all. The applicant made a complaint before the Police of Police Station Barsur but the Police did not take any steps. And the respondent herein taking benefits of the same contracted second marriage on 29.04.2013 which was yet again complained by the applicant however the same also fetched no results and the same was returned to the applicant asking her to go before a competent Court of law. The applicant cannot live with the respondent herein as he has already contracted second marriage and since she did not had any 3 source of income therefore she is undergoing various problems financially and is unable to maintain herself as she does not have any source of income of her own and is presently living with her parents. It was submitted by the applicant before the trial Court that the respondent herein is earning a salary of Rs. 18,000/- and therefore she prayed for an amount of Rs. 6000/- as maintenance per month. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned trial Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned trial Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the respondent himself has admitted in his statement of defence that he has executed the affidavit after marriage before the notary republic at Dantewada. It is further submitted that applicant learned trial Court came to a erroneous finding that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, South Bastar, District – Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 17/2016, whereby the learned trial Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the 4 applicant for grant of maintenance, on the ground that the applicant has filed to prove a valid marriage between the applicant and the non- applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar