1 2026:CGHC:2748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 83 of 2026 Shashikant Joshi S/o Nandkishor Joshi, Aged About 49 Years R/o Near Akash Coaching Class, Toshniwal Layout, District Akola, Maharashtra- 444001 ... Applicant versus 1 - Shrimati Swati Joshi W/o Shashikant Joshi, Aged About 33 Years (Claiming To Be) R/o Godavari Sadan, Toshnil Layout Near Padhe Coaching Class, District Akola, Maharashtra- 444001 And Presently Residing At C/o Vinay Sharma, R/o Parshuram Ward Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Minor Ananya Tiwari, Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Shrimati Swati Joshi Residing As Above (The Name, Marital Status And Address Of The Respondents Are As Reflected In The Court Case Monitoring System) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “The Applicant therefore humbly and most respectfully pray - (a) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in MJC(Criminal) 06/2025 or as an alternative RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 remedy remand the case back to the Learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara for fresh consideration after proper appreciation of evidence regarding the existence of a valid marital relationship and after ensuring strict compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020. (b) That, the Hon'ble Court may pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper 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, a divorcee, was seeking a matrimonial alliance for a second marriage when he came into contact with respondent No.1, a widow whose husband had expired in the year 2022, and respondent No.2, her daughter, both residing at Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara. The parties got engaged, however, due to persistent pressure upon the applicant to shift his residence from Akola, Maharashtra to Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, the engagement was eventually called off. Thereafter, complaints were lodged by the relatives of respondent No.1 at Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara Police Station and by respondent No.1 at Akola Police Station, followed by filing of an application under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking maintenance. The applicant filed his written statement denying any marriage with respondent No.1 and contending that the proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent after cancellation of the engagement. Upon framing of 3 issues and appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, by the impugned order, held that respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant, that respondent No.2 is not his daughter, that respondent No.1 had sufficient cause to live separately, and accordingly awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date of application. Aggrieved by the findings holding respondent No.1 to be the wife of the applicant and by the grant of maintenance, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of law inasmuch as the learned Family Court has erroneously conferred the legal status of “wife” upon respondent No.1 for the purpose of Section 144(1) of the BNSS despite the admitted position that no marriage was ever solemnized between the parties, as is evident from the deposition of respondent No.1 herself wherein she categorically admitted that no saptapadi had taken place and no marriage certificate was produced or exhibited. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has acted in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. by granting maintenance without insisting upon mandatory disclosure of financial affidavits and bank statements, thereby rendering the determination of entitlement and quantum wholly arbitrary. He further submits that reliance placed by the learned 4 Court below on unilateral complaints and engagement photographs is wholly misconceived, as the same do not give rise to any legal presumption of marriage under law. It is also contended that the finding drawn from suggestions put during cross-examination to infer marital relationship is erroneous, as mere temporary cohabitation during the subsistence of an engagement, without solemnization of marriage, does not confer marital status, nor can respondent No.1 derive any benefit from the alleged acts or omissions of the applicant. For all these reasons, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 be set aside. 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 Family Court, Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, after duly considering the pleadings of the parties, framing the relevant issues, and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Court has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously in recording a finding that respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant and that she had sufficient cause to live separately, while correctly holding that respondent No.2 is not the daughter of the applicant. The award of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date of application is reasonable and in consonance with the 5 object and spirit of Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, aimed at preventing destitution and vagrancy. The impugned order is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and settled principles of law. 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. 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar