1 2025:CGHC:32940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 915 of 2021 Vikesh Kumar Sahu S/o Jeevan Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Junwani, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Vandana Sahu W/o Ranjit Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Bhakhara / Bhateli , Ward No. 12, Kotwarpara, Gram Bhateli , Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Aditi Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present 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 judgment ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 10:50:54 +0530 2 dated 12.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 126/2019 and necessary order may kindly be passed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application before the Family Court for the grant of maintenance, and the learned Family Court, vide order dated 30.07.2018, granted maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of the respondent. The applicant filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC along with documents from which it clearly appears that the respondent has been residing with Ranjit Sahu as his wife since 26.05.2018, and accordingly, in all relevant documents, she has mentioned the name of Ranjit Sahu as her husband, for which she has executed supporting documents filed along with the application as part of the list of documents. A copy of the application along with the list of documents is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A/2 (Collectively). 4. After the service of notice, the respondent appeared before the Court and submitted her reply. Thereafter, the learned Family Court directed the applicant to adduce evidence, and accordingly, the applicant led his evidence as well as the evidence of his witnesses. The evidence of the applicant, Hariram, and Bhupendra Gaode was recorded by the learned Family Court. The respondent was not willing to appear before the Family Court and did not cross-examine the witnesses. A copy of the evidence recorded during the proceedings under Section 127 of CrPC is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A/3. 5. The learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2021, 3 held that although the respondent is living as husband and wife with Ranjit Sahu, since a legal divorce between the applicant and the respondent has not been granted, there is no reason to allow the application under Section 127 of CrPC. Accordingly, the application under Section 127 of CrPC was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court, after finding that the respondent is residing with Ranjit Sahu as husband and wife and that they are leading their matrimonial life as husband and wife, and that in each and every relevant document her name has been shown reflecting this status, erroneously held that since she has not obtained a legal divorce from the applicant, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. This is an erroneous finding and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submits that the finding recorded by the learned Family Court is totally against the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as well as against the relevant provisions under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. Once it has been established that the respondent is residing as the wife of Ranjit Sahu, she is not entitled to any kind of maintenance from the applicant, and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the applicant has also filed a revision petition against the order of maintenance, which is pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court, and in view of the impugned order, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that earlier the respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, on which Rs. 2500/- was granted to the respondent by the Family Court vide order dated 30.07.2018. Subsequently, against the said order dated 30.07.2018, the present applicant preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Family Court observing that although the respondent is living with Ranjit Sahu as husband and wife, since a legal divorce between the applicant and the respondent has not been executed. Therefore, the order passed by learned Family Court is just and proper. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the concerned Family Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek