1 2025:CGHC:27753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1337 of 2018 Bhrispati Devi W/o Ramesh Kumar Khunte Aged About 23 Years R/o Snehabhata, Police Station- Kunda, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village- Charkhurakla, Police Station- Pandatarai, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ramesh Kumar Khunte S/o Shri Jhagru Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Snehabhata, Police Station- Kunda, Tehsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.875/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging therein that both parties belong to a community that recognizes "Chhod Chutti" and "Chudi Shadi" as valid customs for marriage. After her divorce from her previous husband, the applicant was living with her parents. Meanwhile, the respondent, who had also divorced his wife, began to like the applicant and proposed marriage to her parents. With mutual consent, the respondent visited the applicant's village with his family members and relatives, bringing clothes and ornaments for the applicant, and took her to his village as his wife according to their community's customs. A marriage deed was executed on April 14, 2017, on a Rs.50 stamp paper, notarized and witnessed. However, the respondent started beating the applicant under the influence of alcohol, and on June 25, 2017, he severely beat her and threw her out of the house, threatening her life. The applicant reported the incident to the police and, due to fear for her life, she has been living with her parents since then. The applicant claims to be physically weak and unable to earn a living, while the respondent is allegedly earning Rs.300-400 per day as a mason 3 and has agricultural land and a Pakka house. The applicant has requested maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month from the respondent in the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, whereby the Family Court has rejected the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent with malafide intentions married the applicant, as the applicant is an illiterate woman and got easily fooled by the respondent. The respondent made physical relationship with her and when his lust got satisfied, he started abusing the applicant both physically and mentally. He further submits that when the respondent award about the report lodged by the applicant, he started residing with her previous married partner and later on before the Court denied all the facts about the marriage with the applicant, whereby their marriage was solemnized in front of villagers as per their custom Chudi Shadi, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set- aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the respondent claimed in his response that the applicant is not his wife and therefore he has no obligation to provide maintenance to her. The applicant's witness testified that the applicant is weak and unable to work, living in a miserable condition with her parents. However, the applicant failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Consequently, her ability or inability to maintain herself is not relevant. It is not proven that the applicant is unable to maintain herself or that the respondent has neglected or refused to maintain her. After observing the evidence and deliberating on the points in question, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and hence, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance from the respondent. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and 5 is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil