1 2026:CGHC:4211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 95 of 2024 Rajkumari Gendre D/o Bisaru Aged About 25 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Koylari, Police Station - Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ward No. 06, Maa Vindhyawasini Ward, Behind Janpad Panchayat, Police Line Kawardha, Tahsil And Police Station Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Sanjay Gendre S/o Kalaram Gendre Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Government Service In Military And Agriculturist, R/o Village Bhaluchuwa, Post Office And Out Post Rajnawagaon, Police Station Bhoramdev, Tahsil Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.D. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.30/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.27 11:10:41 +0530 2 Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the non- applicant, Sanjay Gendre, seeking maintenance. The applicant stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and that their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2021. Thereafter, she resided with the non-applicant in a rented house till 17.06.2022. On the said date, the non- applicant was acquitted of the charges under the offence of rape, after which he started subjecting the applicant to cruelty and subsequently abandoned her, leaving her alone while he went on duty. The learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. However, the learned Court failed to consider that the Hon’ble High Court has, in several judgments, held that even a woman in a live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is bad, illegal, perverse, and contrary to law as well as the evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court erred in denying maintenance to the applicant, despite the fact that she entered into wedlock with the non-applicant and resided with him in a rented house for more than one year, i.e., from 11.05.2021 to 17.06.2022. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be modified by this Hon’ble Court. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and facts placed on record by the applicant and misread the material facts while passing the impugned order. The order passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, is perverse and unsustainable in law, and requires modification by granting 3 maintenance of G15,000/- per month in favour of the applicant, as she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. After the marriage dated 11.05.2021, the applicant resided with the non-applicant in a rented house up to 17.06.2022, which is the date on which the learned Court acquitted the non-applicant in the rape case, based on the affidavit executed by the applicant. The learned Family Court also erred in not granting litigation expenses to the applicant. The impugned order is therefore liable to be modified/enhanced by awarding appropriate litigation expenses in favour of the applicant. The learned Family Court, Kawardha, further erred in holding that the applicant is not a legally wedded wife and, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. The learned Court failed to consider the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that even a woman in a live-in relationship or a kept woman is entitled to maintenance. Hence, the applicant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance from the non-applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any 4 illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order as well as original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/-/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti