1 2025:CGHC:34617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 878 of 2025 Suraj S/o Shivcharan Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Rescue Office, Govinda Collary, District- Mcb (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Pooja W/o Suraj Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Nai Laidery, Tah.- Manendragarh, District- Mcb (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vasant Zokarkar, Advocate. ( through V.C.) For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vasant Zokarkar, learned counsel the applicant and none for the respondent. 2. This criminal 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 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 12:53:26 +0530 2 impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh District Korea (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 185/2024, in the interest of Justice.” 3. As per prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and non-applicant no. 1 were married on 02.05.2023. It is alleged by the non-applicant that soon after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands, doubts about her character, and physical assault under the influence of alcohol. A social meeting was convened wherein community elders directed the applicant to take her back, but he refused. Consequently, she was allegedly expelled from the matrimonial home on 27.08.2024 and has since been residing at her parental house. It is further alleged that the applicant has not provided any financial support despite having sufficient income, leading to the filing of a maintenance application. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and contended that the non-applicant was cruel and aggressive, voluntarily left the matrimonial home along with abandoning the children. He claimed that her belongings were returned on 15.12.2024 and despite efforts, she refused to return. He further asserted that he has no income or agricultural land and is unable to provide maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 17.06.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and thus deserves to be set aside. The Family Court failed to consider the crucial fact that the non-applicant was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is on record that the family members of the non- applicant themselves refused to proceed with the marriage, and the non-applicant was residing at her parental home, not with the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a valid marital relationship and cohabitation, the non-applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Family Court erred in awarding Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance, which is excessive and disproportionate to the applicant’s financial condition, and the order thus calls for interference and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasoned, and in accordance with law. The court rightly appreciated the facts and evidence on record, including the affidavit of marriage dated 02.05.2023, and the cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife. The non-applicant credibly established that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, which compelled her to return to her parental home. Despite the applicant’s denial of the marriage, the overall evidence including the affidavit, ceremonial rites, and the period of cohabitation supported the conclusion that a valid marital 4 relationship existed between the parties. The Family Court was therefore correct in holding that the non-applicant is legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the award of Rs. 4,000/- per month is fair and reasonable considering the circumstances. 7. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav