1 2025:CGHC:37240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 858 of 2025 Smt Beena Sharma W/o Shishir Prakash Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Qr. No.13 D, Street No. 08, Sector No.1 Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Shishir Prakash Sharma S/o Prakashnath Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Qr. No.13, D, Street No.08, Sector No.1 Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) Through Principal Kishorilal Shukla Agriculture College and Research Center G.E. Road Rajnandagaon (C.G.) Presently At Sant Kabir Agriculture College Kawardha (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.703/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant as residing at Himanchal Pradesh and from the Internet site of Shadi. Com she had come to know the respondent. Both of them had stated that they were pre married and divorcee. On 20/03/2019 they got married at Sector no. 1 at Bhilai District PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.01 13:06:45 +0530 2 Durg as per the Hindu Customs. Every this was balanced till the date the applicant asked the respondent to get her children's admission in school. The respondent failed to do so and demanded 20 lakh as dowry. Thus after 8-10 months of the marital life there arose dispute between them. The family members of the respondents had also assaulted the applicant and as such on 25/10/2019 and 26/10/2019 Fir was lodged against them. AN FIR under section 498 A was also been registered at the non- applicant for the demand of dowry. The applicant is a Professor and is earning 82 000 per month. The applicant filed an application under section 125 of CRPC before the family court for maintenance and contented the matter. As per the respondent had denied that he was not been married to the applicant and his earlier marriage case is pending at Madhya Pradesh. He had denied the contentions of the applicant that the applicant has come to his place and he has supported. The Family Court in flimsy manner had decided the matter and had relied on the version of the respondent resulting to reject the application of the maintenance against the applicant. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the factual and legal position in its true spirit. The applicant is a lady who was deceitfully married by the respondent, who concealed material facts prior to the marriage. The Family Court ignored the photographs submitted by the applicant as well as the supporting statement of Mr. D.K. Sharma, who was present at the time of the marriage. Hence, the impugned judgment/order is liable to be set aside. The Family Court also failed to consider the FIRs numbered 180/2019 and 181/2019, which clearly reflect that both parties were residing together as husband and wife. Furthermore, before the Mahila Ayog, a tribunal in Dehradun, the respondent himself admitted that the 3 applicant is his legally wedded wife and that he was taking her to Bhilai. Despite the availability of such cogent and sufficient evidence on record, the Family Court has wrongly refused to grant maintenance, which is contrary to settled principles of law and therefore, unsustainable. The Family Court has also ignored the fact that the respondent committed fraud and deceit by marrying the applicant, and that subsequent investigation by the police—an independent authority—confirmed the marital relationship between the parties. This vital piece of evidence has been completely overlooked, rendering the order legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the respondent has failed to justify his stance. Multiple documents placed on record establish that the applicant and respondent resided together under one roof. Ignoring this evidence goes against the very objective of maintenance law. Additionally, the respondent has approached the Court with unclean hands, having suppressed material facts and presented forged and fabricated documents. A separate complaint under Section 340 CrPC is already pending in this regard. Despite this, the Family Court remained silent and failed to appreciate the relevance of the decision in Rajnish v. Neha, which was misquoted and misused by the respondent. It is also important to note that the respondent is a government employee with a stable and sufficient income. In contrast, the applicant is living in a state of extreme hardship and on the verge of starvation. Hence, the impugned judgment/order is liable to be set aside 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that based on the evidence and documents presented by both the applicant and the respondent, it has been established that the applicant, Bina Thakur, was 4 first married to Ravi Prakash Singh, and that marriage was never legally dissolved by any lawful means. From the marital relationship between the applicant and Ravi Prakash, two sons—Priyashu and Uday—were born. In such a situation, the applicant has completely failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Furthermore, in her application and sworn affidavit, the applicant has not mentioned that she was in a "live-in relationship" with the respondent. It was only for the first time during oral arguments that the claim of being in a live-in relationship was made. However, the applicant has also failed to substantiate this claim with evidence showing that she lived with the non-applicant in a live-in relationship for an extended period. Therefore, the arguments presented by the applicant are not acceptable. Additionally, the facts and circumstances of the cited judicial precedent differ from the facts and circumstances of the present case, and hence the applicant cannot be granted the benefit of that precedent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti