1 2025:CGHC:47275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2021 1 - Gayatri W/o Trilochan Lahre Aged About 23 Years R/o Sohagpur, At Present Durumgarh, Police Chouki Beladula, District Balodabajar, Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Mansi D/o Trilochan Lahre, Aged About 1 And Half Year Through Legal Guardian Mother Gayatri, R/o Sohagpur, At Present Durumgarh, Police Chouki Beladula, District Balodabajar, Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Trilochan Lahre S/o Teras Ram Lahre Aged About 30 Years R/o Shohagpur, P.S. Beladula, District Balodabazar, Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Richa Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and quash the order dated 29.10.2021 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the family court Balodabazar, District Balodabazar passed in MJC No. 262/2019 in between Gayatri and another V/s Trilochan Lahre (ANNEXURE A-1), and grant maintenance per month 25000/- for applicant no.1 and 25000/- for applicant no.2 in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicants 4led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the respondent. It was alleged by applicant no. 1 that she was kept by the respondent as his wife for about 12 months at village Sohagpur in the year 2014, and out of their relationship, applicant no. 2, Mansi, was born on 22.03.2016. It was further alleged that when applicant no. 1 was six months pregnant, the respondent’s 4rst wife returned to the house, and thereafter both the respondent and his 4rst wife subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, pressuring her to abort the child, and ultimately assaulted and expelled her from the matrimonial home. Since then, applicant no. 1 has been residing with her parents at village Durumgarh. The respondent, in his reply, denied all allegations, stating that he is legally married to one Laxmi Bai since 20.06.2002 and has three children from that marriage. He speci4cally denied ever marrying or living with applicant no. 1 or being the father of applicant no. 2. It was further submitted that applicant no. 1 had earlier lodged a false criminal case under Sections 376 and 493 3 IPC, in which, by judgment dated 23.07.2018 in ST No. 17/2017, the respondent was acquitted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 29.10.2021, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favor of applicant no. 2, while rejecting the claim of applicant no. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law, thus liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned family Court failed to appreciate the fact that applicant no. 1, who is an illiterate lady with no independent source of income, was married to the respondent in a temple after his 4rst wife had left him, and they lived together as husband and wife. However, when the respondent’s 4rst wife returned, he refused to continue living with applicant no. 1, compelling the villagers to convene a meeting wherein they requested the respondent to accept applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2, but he denied, which ultimately led to applicant no. 1 lodging an FIR against him. In the said matter, during the Sessions Trial No. 17/2017 (State vs. Trilochan Lahre), the trial court, while acquitting the respondent, recorded a 4nding that both applicant no. 1 and the respondent had married in a temple and lived together with mutual consent. It is further argued that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate these facts and wrongly denied maintenance to 4 applicant no. 1. Moreover, it is submitted that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to applicant no. 2 is wholly insuAcient considering her age, educational needs, medical expenses, and overall upbringing. The respondent is a resourceful person, earning approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per month, and therefore, both applicants are entitled to maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month for their proper sustenance and well-being. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record, rightly held that applicant no. 1 failed to establish a valid marital relationship with the respondent or to prove that she was legally entitled to claim maintenance as a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court further noted that the respondent has a legally wedded wife, Laxmi Bai, and three children from that marriage, and that in the criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 493 IPC, the respondent was acquitted by a judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed in ST No. 17/2017 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. However, keeping in view the welfare and best interest of the child, applicant no. 2, who was found to be in need of 4nancial support, the Court rightly exercised its discretion and awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month in her favor. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 is well-reasoned. 5 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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