1 2026:CGHC:7376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1418 of 2024 Saraswati Haldar W/o Shri Raakhal Haldar Aged About 53 Years R/o In The Quarter Of Tarak Mandal, Subhash Nagar, Ambikapur, Police Station- Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Raakhal Haldar S/o Shri Manoranjan Halda Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ajirma, Police Station Jai Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: 1. Call for the entire records from the court below, 2. Set-aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 (ANN A-1), passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, Distt. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 41/2022, and the Non-applicant be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 15000/- to the Applicant, in the interest of justice. 3. Any other relief, as the Hon'ble Court just think and fit be passed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant–wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month, pleading that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. It was averred that the applicant was earlier married to one Nirmal Haldar, out of which wedlock a daughter, Lalita, was born and later married at Rampur, Banaras (U.P.), however, after about one year of marriage Nirmal Haldar became paralyzed and, in a family and social settlement, separated from the applicant for her better future. It was further stated that the applicant, Nirmal Haldar and the present non-applicant were residents of the same village Ajirma, Ambikapur, and after dissolution of the earlier marriage, the non- applicant married the applicant in a temple, out of which wedlock three children, namely Aseem Haldar, Mamta Haldar and Sujata Haldar, were born, who are now major and married. The applicant pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself even by doing maid work and that till February, 2020 the non-applicant had been 3 providing room rent and household expenses, but thereafter neglected and refused to maintain her, compelling her to file the maintenance application in the year 2021. The non-applicant filed his reply denying the averments and seeking rejection of the application. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the record and evidence of the parties, by impugned order dated 10.10.2024 rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, material and evidence available on record and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest illegality in holding that the parties are not legally wedded husband and wife, which finding is unsustainable in the eye of law while adjudicating an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court had called for an afÏdavit from the non-applicant/husband regarding his income and, upon perusal thereof, has itself recorded in paragraph 21 of the impugned order that the non-applicant possesses sufÏcient means and source of income; however, despite such categorical finding, the application for grant of maintenance has been erroneously rejected, rendering the impugned order arbitrary, perverse and liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the material available on record and the reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 10.10.2024, has properly appreciated the evidence and surrounding circumstances while adjudicating the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court, after examining the nature of the relationship between the parties, the previous marital status of the applicant, and the overall facts brought on record, arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to maintenance in accordance with law, and therefore rejected the application. The findings so recorded are based on proper evaluation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is found to be just, legal and in accordance with settled principles governing maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 6. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified 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