1 2026:CGHC:5183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 524 of 2022 Smt. Sarita Jaiswal W/o Dr. Shashi Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 31, Dadar Kharmora Road, Near Bansh Baadhi, Podibahar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Dr. Shashi Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Dhaniram Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) Present R/o Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and set aside the order passed by the learned Family Court by order dated 09.02.2022, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, whose marriage RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was solemnized on 08.08.2010 at Radhakrishna Mandir, Jashpur, District Jashpur, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the parties cohabited at Jashpur and Jagdalpur from the year 2010 to 2015. The applicant alleges that the respondent later refused to solemnize the marriage as per her community at Bhatgaon and subjected her to physical and mental harassment, as a result of which she lodged FIR No.126/2015 at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.). In the said case, the respondent approached this Hon’ble High Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail bearing No.721/2016, wherein he admitted the fact of marriage with the applicant at Radhakrishna Temple and cohabitation from 2010 to 2015. The applicant further pleaded that she was earlier working as a teacher at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jashpur, but lost her employment due to the temporary nature of her appointment, whereas the respondent is presently working as an Assistant Doctor at the Health Centre, Kadsol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, drawing a monthly salary of about Rs.80,000/-. The applicant is presently residing with her sister at Podibahar, Korba, and is unable to maintain herself, therefore she claimed maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. After service of notice, the respondent filed his reply denying the allegations, particularly disputing the marriage. Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 09.02.2022, rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, 3 perverse, and suffers from patent illegality, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record, including Exhibit P-1, wherein the respondent has categorically admitted the marital relationship with the applicant. The learned Family Court also erred in ignoring the admitted fact that the respondent is a Government employee drawing a gross monthly salary of about Rs. 80,000/-, and despite having sufÏcient means, maintenance was wrongly denied to the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife and entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of the respondent. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Court are contrary to the evidence and admissions made by the respondent before this Hon’ble Court, as the respondent, after having admitted the marriage and taken benefit thereof, has taken a somersault before the Court below, which is impermissible in law, as a party cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the application for maintenance deserves to be allowed. 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 has rightly passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2022 after due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record. The learned Court has correctly held that the applicant failed to establish a legally subsisting marital 4 relationship for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the respondent specifically disputed the marriage and the applicant could not conclusively prove the same in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration the contradictions in the applicant’s own pleadings and evidence, and has rightly concluded that mere past cohabitation or statements made in collateral proceedings do not ipso facto confer the status of legally wedded wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence, are neither perverse nor contrary to law, and therefore do not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6. 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 Rahul Dewangan