1 2025:CGHC:27755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1329 of 2018 Smt. Hempushpa Yadav W/o Satayanarayan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Murmanda Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha ,district Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Satyanarayan Yadav S/o Tulsiram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Dhuma, Post – Marra, Police Station - Patan Tahsil - Patan ,District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. None appeared for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 petition and the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent, namely Satyanarayan Yadav, seeking maintenance and claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the applicant against the respondent, stating inter alia that the applicant was married to the respondent on 09.05.2002. Consequently, the respondent and his family members were prosecuted. It is further stated that the applicant entered into wedlock with the respondent through a legally valid marriage. Thereafter, the applicant started residing with the respondent and his children, namely, Goldi and his wife. However, the respondent started quarreling with and assaulting the applicant at the instigation of others. The applicant gave birth to a child in the year 2003. Later, the applicant and respondent obtained a divorce through mutual compromise on 07.04.2013. It is further stated that the applicant was subjected to cruelty by the respondent and was eventually thrown out of the house by him and his mother. Presently, the applicant is residing at her parental home situated in Village Murmanda. It has also been respectfully submitted by the applicant that she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is legally bound to maintain her, as he is employed in government service at Government Polytechnic College, Durg, and has sufficient means to provide maintenance. The applicant, therefore, prayed for an amount 3 of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The respondent, after being served with notice by the learned Family Court, appeared and filed a reply before the Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), denying the contentions raised in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant. The respondent admitted that the applicant and he entered into a legal marriage and that a child was born from their relationship. However, he stated that due to personal differences, a divorce was mutually agreed upon and finalized on 07.04.2013. He further stated that the applicant resided with him only for a brief period and thereafter, returned to her parental home, where she is currently residing. It was also stated that the respondent owns agricultural land and is employed in government service. Based on these reasons, the respondent prayed before the learned Family Court to dismiss the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 5. The learned Trial Court framed as many as five issues to adjudicate the matter. The statements of both parties were recorded, the documents submitted by both sides were examined, and the arguments advanced were heard by the learned Family Court. Thereafter, an order was passed and the application filed by the applicant was dismissed. The prayer for maintenance was rejected by the learned Family Court on the ground that the applicant could not prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Family 4 Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), is bad in law, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the law and evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in holding that the present applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. He submits that the applicant was indeed married to the respondent and had been leading a happily married life for the last three years. Therefore, the Family Court has committed an error, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s application in its proper perspective. The Court also erred in assessing and observing the facts presented by the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in finding of determination of fact on various reasons and settled down the alimony in wrong presumption and contents have been wrongly taken into consideration, which is perverse, bad in law and needs modification in the order by increasing the maintenance rejected by the learned Family Court. He further submits that the non applicant is already Govt. Servant and agriculture land in the home place. It is no maintenance allowance favour of the applicant in divorce decree. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, illegal on all counts, and is liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was previously filed by the applicant and the same was submitted by the non- 5 applicant. Based on mutual agreement, the applicant had agreed to receive ₹1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) per month from the non- applicant for the maintenance of their minor daughter. Since the applicant had expressed her unwillingness to reside with the non- applicant, no maintenance order was passed in favor of the applicant herself. Upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also evident that the applicant has failed to prove that she is living separately from the non-applicant for justifiable reasons. Furthermore, the divorce between the applicant and non-applicant was granted on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Further from perusal of the applicant’s cross-examination also clearly reveals that she has, of her own will, refused to live with the non-applicant. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal