1 2025:CGHC:25090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 252 of 2018 Ratni Aditya W/o Ramkhilawan Aditya Aged About 40 Years R/o- Village Kharouda, P.S., Sheorinarayan, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ramkhilawan Aditya S/o Ram Sai Aditya Aged About 45 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda, Govt. Hospital Campus Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.20 11:25:52 +0530 2 be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside impugned order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) in case No. 366/2016 and direction may be given Rs. 10000/- per month to maintain in favour of the applicant to the respondent, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance, alleging, inter alia, that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized at Village Kharod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, according to Hindu customs. Ater the marriage, the applicant and respondent resided at Village Baloda. From the beginning of the marital life, the respondent and his family members started torturing the applicant, alleging that she did not perform her household duties properly. The respondent also used to beat her frequently without any reason and treated her with cruelty. However, the applicant tolerated all the ill-treatment with the hope that the respondent and his family would eventually change their behavior. Unfortunately, no improvement was seen. The applicant never intended to break the marriage, but due to continued cruelty, it became impossible for her to continue living with the respondent. 4. During her first pregnancy, the respondent assaulted the applicant, resulting in a miscarriage. During her second pregnancy, a child was born, namely Manju. However, the respondent again treated 3 her with cruelty and expelled both the applicant and the child from the house because of the birth of the girl child. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court against the respondent. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court passed an interim order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Subsequently, the learned Family Court rejected the final application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by its order dated 15.09.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a poor lady and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is working as a dresser and is posted at the Community Health Centre, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, earning a salary of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month. The learned Family Court did not award any compensation and wrongly rejected the applicant’s claim, causing her irreparable loss and hardship in sustaining her livelihood. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and materials available on record. The learned Family Court only considered the fact that the respondent categorically denied the applicant being his wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider relevant documents such as the Aadhaar card, marriage invitation card, and school records of the respondent daughter, Manju, wherein the respondent’s name is mentioned, supporting the applicant’s case. The learned Family Court ought to have awarded maintenance in favour of the applicant considering the 4 circumstances of the case. It is noteworthy that the same Court had earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the applicant. The applicant is a poor lady with no independent source of income. If this Hon’ble Court does not grant maintenance in her favour, she will suffer irreparable loss and hardship in sustaining her livelihood. He also submits that considering the facts, circumstances, and material available on record, the applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant maintenance in her favour. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Family Court, Janjgir District Janjgir – Champa has rightly dismissed the application of the applicant preferred under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, the learned Family Court held that witness Rajan (respondent witness No. 2) stated that the respondent was married to Ramshila, and after Ramshila left the respondent, he took Urmila as his wife. The opposing party suggested that the respondent and his witnesses had married the applicant, which was denied by them. Upon considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, it was found that the applicant was married to Sitaram and the respondent was married to Ramshila Bai. There was no evidence from the applicant to prove that she was socially or legally divorced from Sitaram before 5 marrying the respondent. According to the cross-examination of applicant’s witness Rameshwar, the applicant had not been divorced from Sitaram that date. Similarly, the respondent’s first wife, Ramshila Bai, had left him and returned to her parental home. The applicant and her witnesses did not provide any evidence to prove that there was any social or legal divorce between the respondent and Ramshila. Nor did the opposing party present any suggestion or evidence regarding the same. Hence, it was concluded that there was no divorce between the respondent and his first wife Ramshila. 9. In Clause 01 of the application, the applicant claimed that applicant married the respondent according to Hindu customs 25 years ago. However, she did not provide any evidence during her statement to prove that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals. She only stated that the marriage took place 30 years ago, which was supported by Ramdayal (applicant witness No. 4). In his cross-examination (Clause 03), this witness admitted that he could not say how the marriage between the two took place. Applicant’s witness Rameshwar (applicant witness No. 3) stated that the respondent had taken the applicant as his wife. The applicant did not examine her parents, siblings, or other family members in support of her claim of marriage. The evidence presented by the applicant and her witnesses regarding the marriage lacked consistency. Hence, it could not be established from the applicant’s evidence that the respondent had married her as per Hindu rituals. Thus, from the above analysis, it was established that both the 6 applicant and the non-applicant’s first spouses were still alive and that no social or legal divorce had taken place between them. Therefore, it was not proven by the applicant and her witnesses that she was the legally wedded first wife of the respondent. 10. The burden of proving this issue lay on the applicant. Applicant Ratni (applicant witness No. 1) failed to establish that she is a first legally wedded to respondent through her evidence. Hence, the applicant was not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek