1 2025:CGHC:55325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1381 of 2025 Smt. Suman Pandey W/o Late Umesh Pandey Aged About 47 Years R/o Mahaveer Colony, Mukund Bhawan Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Vimal Pandey S/o Late Umesh Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Ramnagar Urla, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. OfÏce Address- Prosecutors OfÏce, Durg, Civil Line, Durg 2. Vicky Alias Miraj Pandey S/o Late Umesh Pandey Aged About 24 Years R/o Ramnagar Urla, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. OfÏce Address- Prosecutors OfÏce, Durg, Civil Line, Durg ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this criminal revision when the case is called out for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.18 11:49:56 +0530 2 may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the courts below as well as Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 511/2023, and kindly grand Rs. 15,000/- as the maintenance amount to the petitioner from the respondents. The applicant (herein) has moved the present Petition/Application and any other relief/s which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in favor of the applicant in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court , stating, that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 13.03.2005, and thereafter, she resided with her husband as his legally wedded wife from 13.03.2005 until his demise on 24.10.2015. The applicant was the second legally wedded wife of Late Umesh Pandey, and out of the said wedlock, one daughter, namely Lucky Pandey, was born on 15.08.2006, who unfortunately passed away at a tender age. The respondents are the sons of Late Umesh Pandey from his first marriage, and the applicant is their stepmother. In all ofÏcial records pertaining to the applicant’s daughter, the name of the father is recorded as Umesh Pandey, thereby corroborating the marital relationship between the applicant and Late Umesh Pandey. Prior to the death of her husband, the applicant, along with Late Umesh Pandey and respondent Vimal Pandey, resided in a rented accommodation owned by one Yogesh Jain, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. Subsequently, Late Umesh 3 Pandey purchased a plot of land from one Banjara and constructed a house thereon with the assistance of the applicant’s father, Shri Indrabhushan Tiwari, and her brothers, Ganesh Tiwari and Durgesh Tiwari, where they began residing. Presently, the respondents are in occupation of the said house. After the demise of Late Umesh Pandey, the respondents, along with one Prashad Pandey (uncle of the respondents), unlawfully dispossessed the applicant from the said house, compelling her to reside with her 83-year-old father, upon whom she is now entirely dependent. On several occasions, the applicant requested maintenance from the respondents, but they refused to provide the same. Earlier, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance; however, during its pendency, her mother passed away, and due to such circumstances, the applicant could not pursue the said application effectively, resulting in her not receiving maintenance. The respondent No. 01 is employed in the Police Department and earns a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 45,000/-, and is therefore financially capable of maintaining the applicant. 5. The respondents duly denied all averments made by the applicant and submitted, that no marriage was ever solemnized between the applicant/applicant and Late Umesh Pandey. Late Umesh Pandey and the applicant did not have a daughter, as alleged, nor is it true that such child subsequently expired. The applicant is not the stepmother of the respondents, nor did she ever reside with them prior to the demise of their father, Late Umesh Pandey. Since, the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of Late Umesh Pandey, and as she has failed to produce any documentary proof of such marriage, the respondents are under no legal obligation to provide her maintenance. 4 6. The learned Family Court has unjustifiably and partly rejected the application for maintenance preferred by the applicant and has erroneously passed the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 against her. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has erred on facts and in law in allowing the application for the grant of maintenance. The respondent No. 2 has himself admitted during the proceedings that in all ofÏcial records pertaining to the applicant’s daughter, Lucky Pandey, the name of her father is recorded as Umesh Pandey. It is a well-founded presumption in law as well as in ordinary human conduct that no woman would falsely or incorrectly record the name of the father in any ofÏcial document or record pertaining to her own daughter. The applicant is a widowed lady, having no independent source of livelihood or means for her survival, and is compelled to live alone without adequate support. He submits that the applicant is primarily dependent upon her aged father, who is 83 years old and suffering from various ailments, and is therefore unable to provide for her basic sustenance. He further submits that the applicant does not have any gainful employment, is unable to maintain herself, and therefore falls squarely within the ambit of Section 125 CrPC, which has been enacted as a measure of social justice. The applicant, being the widow of Late Umesh Pandey, has an equal right in the estate and property of her deceased husband, and the respondents, being his legal heirs, are in law and in equity bound to maintain her. He submits that the respondents are financially sound and capable of providing maintenance, and in particular, respondent No. 1 is employed in the Police Department and earns approximately Rs. 45,000/- per month. The applicant cannot be denied maintenance merely on the technical ground of non-production of documentary proof of her marriage, particularly when there is sufÏcient 5 oral and circumstantial evidence substantiating her marital relationship with Late Umesh Pandey. The law is well settled that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and a hyper- technical approach in appreciating evidence of marriage defeats the beneficial purpose of the statute. Learned Family Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a liberal and justice-oriented manner while considering the claim of the applicant, thereby causing a grave miscarriage of justice. It is settled law that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not mandatory, and long cohabitation coupled with recognition as husband and wife is sufÏcient to raise a presumption of a valid marital relationship. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned has held in paragraph No. 33 as follows:- “Based on the above evaluation of the entire evidence, it becomes clear that the applicant has failed to establish, even on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, that her marriage was solemnized with Umesh Pandey. Therefore, it also cannot be considered proved that the applicant is the step-mother of the respondents. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to claim any maintenance amount from the non-applicants.” 10. 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 learned Family Court 6 has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek