1 2025:CGHC:33865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 980 of 2022 1 - Smt. Ishwari Patel W/o Vijay Kumar Patel Aged About 24 Years D/o Firanta Lal Patel, R/o Village - Tharhidih, P.S. And Tah. Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Muskan Patel D/o Vijay Kumar Patel Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ishwari Patel W/o Vijay Kumar Patel, R/o Village - Tharhidih, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Mulu Ram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Tharhidih, P.S. And Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to award at least Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of application U/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code to both the applicants, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground that on 29.08.2015, the non-applicant established physical relations with Applicant No.1 on the pretext of marriage, which led to her pregnancy and the birth of Applicant No.2 (daughter Muskan) on 12.02.2016. Despite repeated requests, the non-applicant refused to marry her and later cohabited with her briefly before throwing her out under pressure from his family. An FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered, and charge sheet has been filed in Case No. 08/2016 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar. Applicant No.2’s government records mention the non- applicant as her father. The applicants claimed that the non- applicant earns around ₹50,000 per month through factory work and agricultural land, and sought ₹15,000 and ₹10,000 per month respectively as maintenance. The non-applicant, in reply, denied all claims, questioned the character of Applicant No.1, and claimed to be a daily wager with no stable income or property. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, held that Applicant No.1 was 3 not a legally wedded wife and denied her maintenance but granted ₹3,000 per month to the minor child. The present revision challenges this decision as being erroneous, particularly in not awarding maintenance to Applicant No.1 despite clear evidence of a prolonged relationship, cohabitation, and the non-applicant’s financial capacity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that The impugned order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law. The Trial Court erred in holding that Applicant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, despite clear evidence of a long-standing love relationship and a sustained live-in arrangement. It also failed to recognize that the applicant was compelled to leave the shared household due to assault and mistreatment under the influence of the non-applicant’s parents. The Court further erred in awarding an unreasonably low maintenance amount to Applicant No.2, a minor girl, without considering her age, daily needs, and overall development. The Trial Court overlooked the non-applicant’s financial capacity an income of approximately ₹50,000/month and ignored settled legal principles, including the Supreme Court’s guidelines that maintenance should be around 25% of the husband’s income and that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance and a similar standard of living. Additionally, the Court disregarded the non-applicant’s deliberate conduct to abandon the applicants and failed to consider their complete financial dependence, absence of income, and the documentary 4 and oral evidence on record. Hence, the order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhathapara, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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. After carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and legal principles, the Court rightly concluded that Applicant No.1 was not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which applies only to legally recognized spouses. The Court appropriately distinguished the nature of the relationship, noting that although the parties may have shared a personal bond or lived together briefly, this did not constitute a valid marriage under law. However, acknowledging the undisputed fact that Applicant No.2 is the biological daughter of the non-applicant, whose name is reflected in official records, the Court correctly awarded her maintenance of ₹3,000 per month. The Family Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring the welfare of the minor child while adhering to the legal requirements governing 5 entitlement to maintenance. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan