1 2026:CGHC:1734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 689 of 2024 Akhilesh Kumar S/o Manbodh Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Barhava Tola, Post Jhingarda, District Singrauli, C.G. Note- Fathers Name Of The Applicant Has Been Mentioned Wrongly As Jatin In The Impugned Order ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Tara W/o Akhilesh Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Saja Tola West Chirmiri Podi, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B. C.G. Note- Non-Applicants Description As Per Title Mentioned In The Impugned Order Infact Non-Applicant Is Not The Wife Of The Applicant ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: 1. “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the court below and after being satisfied may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 09.05.2024 (Annexure A/1), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 118/2023, by learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) titled as Smt. Tara Vs. Akhilesh Kumar. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the court below and after being satisfied may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), seeking grant of maintenance allowance from the applicant, alleging him to be her husband. According to the non- applicant, she was married to the applicant on 06.09.2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals (Saptapadi) at Village Saja Tola Podi, and thereafter she came to her matrimonial home and both started living together, enjoying their marital life. It is alleged that although her father gave cash amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and various articles as Streedhan, at the time of departure, the applicant demanded a motorcycle, which was denied due to the poor financial condition of her father. On this ground, the applicant and his family members started misbehaving with the non-applicant and the applicant used to physically assault her. The non-applicant resided at her matrimonial home only for five days and when her parents came for 3 Bidai (Chouthi), they were also misbehaved with by the applicant. The applicant asked the non-applicant to raise a demand for a motorcycle from her father and made it clear that unless the same was provided, she would neither be taken back nor allowed to return, as they would not keep her with them. The non-applicant and her family members tried their best, both individually and socially, to resolve the dispute, but the applicant did not take her back. Since March 2020–21, the applicant stopped talking to and contacting the non-applicant. The non-applicant further came to know that the applicant had performed a second marriage with one Sarita, a resident of Village Bhandria, Ramanujganj. When the family members of the non-applicant enquired about the same, the applicant admitted his second marriage and refused to keep the non-applicant with him. It is further alleged that the non-applicant has no independent source of income. The applicant is stated to be working in Singrauli Mine under a private contractor and earning about Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is alleged that the applicant is neglecting to maintain the non-applicant, due to which she is facing severe hardship and is living a dependent life on her father. The non-applicant prayed for grant of maintenance allowance from the applicant at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month before the learned Family Court. 3. The reply filed by the applicant and opposed the application primarily on the ground that the non-applicant is not his legally wedded wife and that no marriage ever took place between them. It was contended that they became acquainted in the year 2019 and 4 that the non-applicant stayed with the applicant for one day in a live- in relationship at Village Barhawa Tola, Post Jhingarda, District Singrauli, and returned the next day. It was further alleged that the non-applicant is falsely portraying herself as the wife of the applicant merely to extract money in the form of maintenance. The applicant further contended that he is a labourer in his village and earns Rs. 250/- per day only when work is available. He also has the responsibility of maintaining his sister, who is a student. It was further alleged that the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself, as she earns Rs. 300/- per day by doing labour work and selling Mauhadori. It was also stated that the non-applicant’s father owns five acres of land and earns approximately Rs. 5 lakhs annually. The applicant further submitted that he is willing to keep the non-applicant after marrying her as per social customs and rituals. However, he prays for rejecting the maintenance application in the interest of justice. 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Family Court framed four points for determination and the learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 09.05.2024, whereby the applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the non- applicant/wife from the date of filing of application. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea 5 (C.G.), is illegal, improper, and contrary to the facts, evidence, and settled principles of law, as the learned Family Court has recorded findings on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated grounds while ignoring material evidence available on record in favour of the applicant. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and, therefore, does not acquire the status of “wife” under the Hindu Marriage Act, making her ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which fact is evident from contradictions, omissions, and unnatural conduct appearing in her own evidence. The learned Family Court further erred in drawing incorrect inferences regarding the financial capacity and alleged neglect of the applicant without properly considering his actual income as a daily wage labourer, the uncertainty of employment, and his liability towards maintaining his dependent sister and also failed to strike a balance between the genuine needs of the non- applicant and the real earning capacity and liabilities of the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court overlooked the settled principle that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature and require appreciation of evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, which has not been adhered to, resulting in misapplication of law. The non-lodging of any complaint by the non- applicant or her father regarding the alleged marriage or dowry- related harassment further falsifies her claims, yet the same was not duly considered. The impugned order thus suffers from material 6 illegality, improper appreciation of evidence, and non-consideration of essential ingredients of Section 125 Cr.P.C., leading to miscarriage of justice and therefore deserves to be set aside or quashed by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of the application. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the 7 non-applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal