1 2025:CGHC:34971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 36 of 2023 Shiv Prasad S/o Shri Dukhna Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lavai, P.S. And Tahsil Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vimla Ekka W/o Shri Shiv Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bishunpur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:- A. To call for the records of present case. B. To allow the instant revision and set aside RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the impugned order dt. 23.09.2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice. C. To pass any other order as per the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance, alleging that she was married to the applicant 18–20 years ago at village Ekamba, District Jashpur, as per Hindu rituals. She claimed that after marriage, she was harassed by the applicant and his family due to childlessness, yet she continued residing in the matrimonial home. Later, she shifted to Bishunpur and began living in a rented house, where the applicant also joined her but continued the harassment, prompting her to file for maintenance. In response, the applicant denied the marital relationship, stating that both parties belong to a tribal community and were governed by tribal customs, specifically the “Badhwa Ritual,” under which a deserted or widowed woman lives in a man’s house to take care of his family, without a formal marriage. He further claimed he suffered from epilepsy for the past 20–30 years and had no stable income. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court framed five issues, all of which were decided in favor of the non-applicant, and awarded her ₹1,000/- as monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law 3 and unsustainable, as it failed to appreciate the core issue raised by the applicant regarding the absence of a legally valid marital relationship between the parties. The applicant clearly pleaded and proved that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife, and notably, the respondent’s actual husband was examined before the Family Court, who specifically deposed that he is the lawful husband of the respondent. Despite this, the respondent failed to establish the factum of marriage with the applicant through any cogent evidence. Furthermore, the applicant is not earning sufficient income to even maintain himself, a fact evident from the record of the lower court. In such circumstances, the respondent, being legally married to another person, is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant, and the Family Court ought to have dismissed her claim on this ground alone. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court awarding ₹1,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant is just, reasonable, and legally sound. The Court rightly considered the long duration of cohabitation between the parties spanning nearly two decades as a strong presumption of a valid marital relationship under Section 125 Cr.P.C., especially in the absence of any formal rebuttal with substantial documentary evidence from the applicant. The Family Court appropriately gave weight to the non-applicant’s consistent 4 claim of being treated as the applicant’s wife, along with her testimony regarding mental and emotional harassment faced during the relationship. The Court also correctly disregarded the applicant’s vague and unsupported defense based on the so-called “Badhwa Ritual,” which lacked legal recognition and failed to disprove the existence of a matrimonial bond. Given that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision aimed at preventing destitution, the Family Court’s order ensures basic financial support to the woman who lived as a wife and was dependent on the applicant. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan