1 2025:CGHC:38901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1278 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sakhin Khatun Joshi W/o Rajendra Kumar Joshi Aged About 18 Years R/o House No. 156, Jewdan Kala, Post Maharajpur, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G., Presently Residing At Sirajuddin Ward No. 4, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Behind Bijli Office, Lohara Road Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Divyanshi D/o Rajendra Joshi Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sakhin Khatun, R/o House No. 156, Jewdan Kala, Post Maharajpur, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G., Presently Residing At Sirajuddin Ward No. 4, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Behind Bijli Office, Lohara Road Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Rajendra Kumar Joshi S/o Kanhaiya Joshi Aged About 22 Years Occupation Private Job, Mason And Tiles Mistry, R/o House No. 156, Jewdan Kala, Post Maharajpur, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 05 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.539/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent had a relationship despite belonging to different religions, and they got married without their families' consent. An FIR was registered against the respondent under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, but the matter was resolved through mutual compromise, and the respondent was acquitted. The respondent allegedly exploited and deserted the applicant, who gave birth to their minor daughter, Ku. Divyanshi. The applicant's father tried to contact the respondent, but he verbally abused and assaulted the applicant. The applicant, having no source of income, filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance. The trial Court framed issues, including whether the applicant is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent. The trial Court concluded that the applicant failed to prove her marriage but granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for their minor daughter. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in rejecting maintenance for applicant No. 1, as proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC are summary and aimed at providing immediate relief to women. Strict proof of marriage ceremony is not required in Section 125 proceedings, and maintenance should have been granted based on available evidence. He further submits that the trial Court had previously acquitted the respondent, acknowledging the applicant as his wife, which the respondent misused to desert the applicant. The Police authorities also recognized the applicant as the respondent's wife in proceedings under Section 155 of CrPC. He also submits that the marriage was solemnized secretly without informing family members, which is why elaborate ceremonies weren't strictly proved. Hence, the impugned judgment of Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 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 impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2 observing the evidence and it was found that applicant No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and therefore, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance amount from the respondent under Section 125 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, regarding applicant No. 2, Kumari Divyanshi, she is the minor child of the respondent and is incapable of maintaining herself. In such circumstances, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant No.2 is entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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