1 2025:CGHC:54180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1340 of 2025 Jaipal Singh Dhruve S/o Ramjatan Dhruve Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Permnagar Post And PS Basantpur, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur (C.G.) Presently At - Arakshak No. 861 City Kotwali Sukma, District- Sukma (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sonam Dhruve W/o Jaipal Dhruve Aged About 32 Years R/o Jamkot Para Kondagaon PS And District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate.. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been :led by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present revision petition; and, 2. Further pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.07 14:48:06 +0530 2 dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 18/2022; and 3. Pass any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems 4t to secure the ends of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the applicant against the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon, in Special Criminal Case No. 18/2022. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent :led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from the applicant. It was alleged therein that the applicant and the respondent got married on 09.03.2014 at Shiv Mandir, Kopabeda, Kondagaon (C.G.), and subsequently registered their marriage before the Nagar Palika. After one year of marriage, diAerences arose between the parties, and the applicant started harassing the respondent. It was further alleged that the applicant never introduced her to his parents, nor did he take her to the matrimonial home despite repeated requests, and he used to visit his home alone, leaving her behind. It was also alleged that the applicant has married another woman named Meena Singh and has two children with her. Furthermore, the respondent alleged that the applicant, being posted in the Police Department, used to threaten her and had stopped providing maintenance. On her complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sukma, the SP directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. However, the applicant paid only Rs. 8,000/- per month till July 2020. The respondent, in her application, further stated that the applicant draws a monthly salary of Rs. 56,000/-, that she has no source of income to maintain herself, and therefore 3 prayed for the grant of maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the applicant. 5. The applicant :led his objection and reply to the said application and vehemently denied all allegations made therein. The applicant speci:cally stated that no marriage had ever taken place between him and the respondent and that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. He further denied the averments regarding the alleged marriage. The applicant submitted that in the alleged marriage registration certi:cate, he has been shown as a resident of Jamkot Para, Kondagaon, whereas he has never resided in Kondagaon, nor has he ever taken the respondent to his posting place at Sukma. He further stated that Meena Singh, who has been alleged to be his “illegal wife,” is in fact his legally wedded wife, and her name is duly recorded in all government documents and departmental records. The applicant therefore contended that the application :led by the respondent is false, fabricated, and vague, and hence prayed for its dismissal. 6. Both parties :led their aDdavits-in-evidence as per the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, led evidence in their favour, and cross-examined each other and their respective witnesses. The respondent reiterated the contents of her application, and the applicant reaDrmed the statements made in his objection and reply during the course of evidence. 7. Despite speci:c denial and evidence placed on record, the Learned Family Court, in complete disregard of the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law, erroneously allowed the respondent’s application under Section 125 of CrPC and granted her maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 4 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant either under the customary rites and ceremonies or under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to establish that any valid marriage took place between the applicant and the respondent in accordance with law or the customary rites and rituals of the parties. The :nding of the Learned Family Court on the existence of marriage is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. He submits that the learned Family Court has grossly erred in law and on facts in allowing the application under Section 125 of CrPC without properly appreciating the evidence led by the parties, particularly in the absence of any concrete proof of marriage between them. He also submits that the respondent has failed to produce any priest, eyewitness, or photographic evidence to substantiate the alleged marriage at Shiv Mandir, Kopabeda. In the absence of such evidence, the mere production of an aDdavit or a certi:cate purportedly issued by the Nagar Palika cannot establish a valid marriage in the eyes of law. As per the settled law, inter-community marriages between a member of a Scheduled Tribe and a person belonging to another community can only be solemnized and recognized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In the present case, no marriage has been registered under the said Act. The so-called certi:cate issued by the Nagar Palika is not a competent document to prove a valid marriage; hence, the very foundation of the respondent’s claim under Section 125 CrPC fails. He further submits that the respondent has failed to prove the genuineness of Exhibit P-11 (aDdavit) as required under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The witnesses named in the said aDdavit were never examined before the Court, nor was the Notary Public who 5 notarized the document examined. Hence, the document remains unproved and inadmissible in evidence. The respondent has made inconsistent statements regarding the period of cohabitation, alleged harassment, and the nature of her relationship with the applicant. Such contradictions create serious doubt about the veracity of her case, which the learned Family Court failed to appreciate. No independent witness has stated to have seen the applicant and the respondent living together. Even the respondent’s own witness, P.W.2 Jaishri Rangari, has contradicted herself in her deposition. She :rst stated that she visited Sukma after 3–4 years of the alleged marriage, when the applicant was living in a police barrack (where females are not permitted), and later claimed that the respondent told her about alleged assaults after one year of marriage. These contradictions completely demolish the respondent’s case regarding cohabitation and marriage. He submits that the applicant produced the Rojnamcha Sanha (Exhibit D-4) of Police Station City Kotwali, Kondagaon, dated 11.03.2014, which clearly records that the applicant was deputed to Jagdalpur on oDcial duty at the relevant time, thereby proving his absence on the alleged date of marriage. This vital documentary evidence was completely ignored by the learned Family Court, thereby vitiating the :nding regarding the alleged marriage. It is a settled principle that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can only be granted to a “legally wedded wife.” In the instant case, the respondent has utterly failed to prove a valid and subsisting marriage; therefore, the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. The :ndings recorded by the Learned Family Court are based on conjectures and surmises rather than on legal evidence available on record. The impugned order suAers from perversity, non-application of mind, and 6 misreading of evidence, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek