1 2025:CGHC:34922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 993 of 2022 Smt Shanti Bai W/o Shri Dasrath Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Keshavpur P.S. Tahsil -Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Dasrath Sahu S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 3 Mishra Gali Surajpur Town, Post And P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyna Prasad Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.546/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that are that the applicant was married to the respondents in the year 2002 as per Hindu customs. The applicant and the respondent have three children. Their names are Deepak Kumar Sahu, Miss Aarti and Miss Pooja. The respondent started harassing the applicant by beating her everyday for giving less things in marriage, such as fridge, cooler, TV, motorcycle, gold, silver jewellery etc. But the applicant kept tolerating everything. But the respondent beat her and threw her out of the house, about which she lodged a report in Police Station, Surajpur on 20.04.2015 and later a meeting was called, in which after a settlement was reached, she again started living with the respondent, but the respondent again beat her and threw her out of the house. The respondent snatched all three children and kept them with himself, due to which the applicant has been deprived of the love of the children. The applicant is always ill. She is unable to do any work. She is not able to maintain herself. Whereas the respondent has 2-3 acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 1,00,000 per year and Rs. 30,000 per month by doing plumbing work and Rs. 10,000 per month by maintaining mobile towers. Hence, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and requested the respondent to give her Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance allowance. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, rejected the application filed 3 by the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, is contrary to law and is liable to be modified or set-aside accordance with the evidence. The Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the admitted fact that, the applicant was married and lived with the respondent for about 18 years and in said period three children were born from the wedlock, and therefore, the learned Family Court fall short to consider the section 26 of the The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in cantena of judgment that women in domestic relationships are equally entitled to all the reliefs which are available to legally wedded wife, in the statutory provisions. Further, the learned Family Court also failed to consider that, the respondent has numerous resources and earning handsome amount, and from that, even then, the application for maintenance was rejected whereas, it is not a case of second marriage but section 125 deals with the standard of proof that, applicant has proved her marriage or not with the respondent, even then, the learned Court misinterpreted the term "wife" and application for maintenance was rejected. It is nothing more than but a gimmicks and tactics of the respondent, that, at the time of marriage, the respondent and his family have managed to hide the fact that, he is already 4 married and even then he setup his marriage with the applicant and after such a long period destroyed the life of the applicant 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 Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that, the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance because her marital status with the respondent hasn't been proven. Despite the respondent providing for their children's education, upbringing, and maintenance, the applicant's claim for maintenance is denied due to the lack of evidence confirming their legal marriage. 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 5 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 Kunal