1 2026:CGHC:7412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1421 of 2024 Rakesh Kumar Shresth S/o Shri Raju Lal Shresth Aged About 42 Years R/o Mig 2/807, Housing Board Colony, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, District Durg. Present R/o Engineer At Ambuja Cement Company Dadri, Ntpc Dhum Manikpuri, Badpura District Gautambudh Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) ... Applicant versus Smt Neetu Chelak W/o Rakesh Kumar Shresth Aged About 36 Years Present R/o Hdd, 1/97 Phase 3 Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Mishra, 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: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the judgment dated 18.10.2024, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 422/2022, may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–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 her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 06.12.2019 at Arya Samaj Sanskar Kendra, Akhil Bhartiya Arya Samaj Trust, Raipur, and that soon after the marriage she was subjected to harassment, abuse and dowry demands of Rs.10,00,000/-, motorcycle and money by the applicant and his family members, as a result of which she was forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home and compelled to reside separately since 31.05.2020 without any financial support, despite the applicant being employed at Ambuja Cement and earning a monthly salary. The applicant, in his reply, denied the marital relationship and contended that he was already legally married to Smt. Manju Shresth and had a son from the said wedlock, that the alleged marriage with the respondent was forcibly arranged with an intention to extort money and had been challenged before the competent court for declaration of nullity, that the respondent had never resided with him as his wife, was herself earning through private employment, and was allegedly already married to another person without obtaining divorce. The learned court below, after considering the pleadings and material on record, vide impugned judgment dated 18.10.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent 3 from the date of filing of the application i.e., 31.05.2022. 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, erroneous and contrary to law, as the Court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent was already married to another person and had not obtained any lawful divorce, and therefore no valid marital relationship existed between the parties so as to entitle her to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court did not consider the fundamental contention of the applicant regarding the absence of a legal marriage, despite the pendency of proceedings before the competent court at Ghaziabad seeking declaration of the alleged marriage as null and void on the ground that the same was forced and fraudulent, nor did it examine the lack of credible evidence of marriage, including the absence of witnesses’ signatures on the Arya Samaj marriage document. The Court below also failed to take into account that the applicant had lodged complaints against the respondent, that he is already paying maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to his legally wedded first wife, and that the alleged income of Rs.35,000/- per month attributed to the applicant has not been duly proved. It is thus contended that the Family Court erred in granting maintenance without establishing a lawful marital relationship and without properly appreciating the true scope and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly when the respondent, 4 being already married and not divorced from her first husband, is not legally entitled to claim maintenance from the present applicant, as also afÏrmed in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sangeeta Rathore v. Naresh Rathore, Cr.R. No. 4495/2018. 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, upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced on record and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly and judiciously exercised its jurisdiction in partly allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarding maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent–wife from the date of the application. The impugned order reflects proper appreciation of the material available on record, the subsisting relationship between the parties, the financial capacity of the applicant, and the settled legal position that a neglected wife who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to reasonable maintenance so as to live with dignity in accordance with the status of the husband. The learned Court has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order. 5 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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