1 2025:CGHC:29188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 39 of 2020 Vijay Sahu S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Aged About 30 Years Occupation Service, R/o Village Ranai, Post Ranai, Police Station Patan, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Anjali W/o Vijay Sahu Aged About 23 Years Caste Teli, R/o Bawaspara, Odgi, Police Station And Post Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.11/2019, whereby the application made by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:07 +0530 2 been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month the respondent, as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant and respondent was solemnized in 29.05.2018. Just after the marriage, there was some altercation between the applicant and respondent and due to which, the respondent left the house of present applicant and after mediation of respected person and even in counseling also she refused to live with the applicant, as the applicant always used to harass the respondent and ultimately the respondent left his house, It was further contended that the applicant despite having sufficient means, is not maintaining the respondent, therefore they filed application for maintenance. After serving notice, the applicant filed his reply, whereby denied all the allegations and categorically submitted that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife as earlier there was love and affair between then and therefore they established physical relationship and the respondent lodged an report under Section 376 of IPC against the applicant in which he was acquitted. When the applicant is acquitted from the above charges a false story has been created by the respondent and she stated that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant. After going through the material and evidence available on record the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant and awarded a sum of Rs. 1500/- as maintenance. Hence, this revision 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The respondent has failed to established this fact that marriage was solemnized between her and applicant but in paragraph 3 No. 18 the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciate fact that there was marriage between them. The fact of marriage has not been established by the respondent even she filed the documents in support of the marriage is also not relevant with the case. The respondent has failed to prove the fact of marriage with any documentary evidence then also the learned Family Court passed the above order. As per the pleading of the parties, the applicant has raised specific defense that the respondents are not residing with the applicant as she is not his wife. Further, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 11/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent/wife and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti