1 2025:CGHC:41456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1243 of 2018 Kusum Bharti S/o Baliram Bharti Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Sahu Pan Thela Urga ,tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Budhbai D/o Late Udhoram Aged About 32 Years R/o Urga Present R/o Village Godhi ,police Station Balco ,tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgqarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant / husband being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.09.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of SC/ST Atrocity Act), District Korba, in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2018 (along with connected appeal No. 37/2018), affirming the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 72/2015, whereby the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.700/- per month to the respondent / wife under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act, 2005"). 2. The case in brief is that the respondent filed an application against the applicant under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that the applicant and the non-applicant were married and residing at Village Urga, Korba. Out of their marital wedlock, a child was born on 19.08.2015, who is now about 11 years old and residing with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant started assaulting the respondent, against which she lodged a complaint at Police Station Balco on 29.11.2015. A community meeting was convened wherein the applicant agreed not to assault her, but he continued with such conduct. The applicant also demanded divorce, but the respondent refused as she had no independent source of income and her daughter was residing with her. At present, she is living with her sister. It is alleged that the applicant committed domestic violence, attempted to kill her, and expelled her from the matrimonial house. Consequently, the respondent sought relief under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Act, 2005. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the respondent maintained illicit relations with others, and the child was illegitimate. He claimed that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife and, therefore, the question of divorce did not 3 arise. He further denied assaulting her and alleged that she falsely accused him of burning her on 23.05.2015, though she was not residing in Village Urga on that date. It was also stated that she had earlier filed an application under Section 125 CrPC against one Totaram, which was dismissed as she was not his legally wedded wife, and that she was receiving a divorcee pension. He further contended that he was unemployed and had no income, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. After completion of pleadings and evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), by order dated 27.04.2018, directed the applicant under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to pay Rs.700/- per month to the respondent. Both parties preferred appeals against the said order before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of SC/ST Atrocities Act), District Korba (C.G.), wherein the applicant challenged issue Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the respondent challenged issue Nos. 3, 4, and 5. By judgment dated 22.09.2018, the appellate Court dismissed both appeals. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. He further submits that both trial Court as well as the appellate Court erred in presuming existence of a marital relationship merely on the basis of the police complaints and the 4 birth of the child. He also submits that the applicant is unemployed and has no means to provide any monetary relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the materials available on the record, it transpires that on the basis of cogent evidence, it has been concluded that the respondent was living with the applicant in a relationship akin to marriage, that a child was born from of the said relationship, and that the respondent was subjected to acts of violence by the applicant. The testimony of the respondent, supported by documentary evidence, including police complaints and medical records, has not been effectively rebutted by the applicant. The defence of the applicant that the respondent was never his wife is found to be evasive and inconsistent, particularly in view of his failure to disprove cohabitation and the birth of the child. 6. It is well settled that under the Act, 2005, the expression “domestic relationship” is wide enough to include not only legally wedded wives but also women living in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Thus, even assuming that the strict proof of a valid marriage was not furnished, the respondent, having lived with the applicant in a shared household and borne his child, clearly falls within the protective umbrella of the Act, 2005. 7. As regards the plea of financial incapacity, it is also trite law that a healthy and able-bodied person cannot escape liability to maintain 5 his wife or partner merely by pleading unemployment. The applicant, being an able-bodied man, is duty bound to earn by physical or mental labour and maintain the respondent, who has no independent means of livelihood. The quantum of Rs.700/- per month, as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, is modest and reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case and cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified. 8. This Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, is not to re- appreciate evidence unless a manifest illegality or perversity is demonstrated. On careful scrutiny, no such illegality, impropriety, or perversity is found in the concurrent findings of both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court warranting interference. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil