1 2026:CGHC:2788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 318 of 2023 1. Smt. Phulmati Poyam D/o Dashu Poyam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Ichchapur, Tahsil- Bastar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2. Shaurya Kumar Ganwre S/o Kaushal Ganwre Aged About 3 Years Presented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Phulmati Poyam, D/o Dashu Poyam, Aged About- 30 Years, R/o Village- Ichchapur, Tahsil- Bastar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Kaushal Ganwre S/o Basant Ganwre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Dubey Umargaon, Tahsil and Police Station- Bastar, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advoate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Court of Judge, Family Court, Bastar, Place – Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No.03/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and rejected the maintenance application of applicant No. 1/wife, and granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 18:28:39 +0530 2 applicant No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants instituted an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that applicant No. 1 and the respondent were in a live-in relationship for a long period on the pretext of marriage. Due to the said relationship, applicant No. 2 was born. It is contended that when the respondent refused to marry applicant No. 1, the matter was reported by her, and an offence under Section 376 IPC was registered against the respondent. Due to the said incident, there is no one to take care of the petitioners, and applicant No. 1 has no source of income. It is further contended that the respondent has a sufficient source of income; therefore, the present application has been filed seeking maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It is an admitted position that applicant No. 1 and the respondent were in a live-in relationship; therefore, applicant No. 1 is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent, being a legally wedded wife in the eyes of law. However, the said claim was wrongly rejected by the Family Court. The learned Family Court has awarded maintenance in favour of applicant No. 2, which is on the lower side, considering the financial condition and earning capacity of the respondent. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, and by adopting an arbitrary approach, has illegally rejected the application of applicant No. 1. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and 3 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 orders of the Family Court, it transpires that status of Applicant No. 1 as the wife of the respondent has not been proved or established. Consequently, Applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent, and therefore, her application is dismissed. As far as Applicant No. 2, the minor, is concerned, the respondent has been found to be the biological father of Applicant No. 2. Accordingly, Applicant No. 2, being a minor, is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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