1 2026:CGHC:7375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1424 of 2024 Tekchand Purena S/o Punau Ram Purena Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dhourabhath Khurd, Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Mamta Dahariya (Purena) W/o Shri Tekchand Purena Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Kamal Narayan Dahariya, R/o Ward Chowk, Near Masjid, Village Kunar (Kunra), Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 6led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order dated 25/05/2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 - Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 908/2023 [Smt. Mamta Dahariya (Purena) Vs. Tekchand Purena] may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from interim maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems <t and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–wife 6led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 908/2023, seeking maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month on the ground that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 07.05.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife; however, after some time the applicant allegedly subjected her to cruelty and physical assault and ultimately neglected to maintain her, compelling her to reside at her parental home without any independent source of income, while the applicant was stated to be working as a security guard earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. The applicant 6led his reply denying the marriage and all allegations, contending that the respondent had never resided with him and that he was a minor at the time of 3 the alleged marriage, and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, contentions and material available on record, by order dated 25.05.2024 partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, contrary to law and not in consonance with the facts and material available on record, inasmuch as the learned Family Court has unjusti6ably awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent without properly appreciating that the applicant was a minor at the time of the alleged marriage and, therefore, no valid marriage in the eye of law existed between the parties, disentitling the respondent from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; it is further contended that the 6ndings of the learned Family Court are based on erroneous presumptions and inferences, and that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself, while the applicant lacks suBcient means and is burdened with familial responsibilities, which aspects have not been duly considered despite the evidence, statements and documents available on record, and the learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate the applicant’s defence that no marital relationship ever subsisted between the parties and that false allegations were made against him and his family members, thus, the impugned order 4 suDers from gross illegality, non-application of judicial mind and misinterpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, and upon proper appreciation of the social and economic status of the parties as well as the object and spirit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has rightly concluded that the respondent–wife, having been neglected and left without any independent source of income, was entitled to maintenance, and accordingly, by order dated 25.05.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 908/2023, has justly and reasonably awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent, which 6nding is well-reasoned and lawful. 7. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 6nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in6rmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi6ed 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