1 2025:CGHC:29531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 19 of 2018 Premchand Paikra S/o Shri Vijay Paikra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jurgum Post Kurdeg Tahsil Bagicha Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh Present Address 160 Battalion C R P C Police Jambu, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Bindi Paikra W/o Premchand Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jurgum Post Kurdeg Tahsil Bagicha District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. J.K. Saxena, learned counsel 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 impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the Family Court Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 32/2017, in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jashpur, seeking maintenance from the applicant, alleging that due to a love affair, both had executed an affidavit of marriage on 02.10.2015, after which the non-applicant began residing with the applicant. It was further claimed that their marriage was formally solemnized on 01.02.2018 at Durga Temple, Bagicha in the presence of family members, and they lived together as husband and wife. However, after about eight months, the applicant and his family allegedly began demanding dowry and subjected the non-applicant to cruelty, forcing her to return to her parental home. In his reply, the applicant denied all allegations, stating that no marriage ever took place and that the non-applicant’s family later refused the alliance, making her ineligible for maintenance. After hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the application and granted Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision. 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 3 of the applicant, as no valid marriage was ever solemnized between them. 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. 7,500/- 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. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, (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. The court rightly appreciated the facts and evidence on record, including the affidavit of marriage dated 02.10.2015, the subsequent ceremonial marriage on 01.02.2018 at Durga Temple, 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 4 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 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. 7,500/- per month is fair and reasonable considering the circumstances. 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan