1 2026:CGHC:5778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1097 of 2024 Smt. Sharda Dubey W/o. Mahesh Dubey Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village - Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tahsil - Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Mahesh Dubey S/o. Jagdish Prasad Dubey Aged About 48 Years R/o. Village - Khamha, Post - Lohi, Tahsil - Hujur, Distt. Rewa (M.P.) Present Address - Badsagar, Irrigation Department Colony, Rewa, Post - Rewa, Tahsil And Distt. Rewa (M.P.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.90/2009, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 25.09.2009, the applicant, Smt. Sharda Dubey, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month against her husband, non-applicant Mahesh Dubey, before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 90/2009, and notice was issued to the non-applicant Mahesh Dubey. In the application, it was averred that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized in April–May 1982 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, a male child, Harish Dubey, was born in the year 1983. It was further contended by the applicant that the father of the non-applicant, Jagdish Prasad Dubey, was employed as a driver in the Forest Department and was residing at Gandhi Chowk, Ambikapur, in a government- constructed house, where after marriage the applicant resided with the non-applicant as his legally wedded wife. After the birth of their son, the applicant resided with the non-applicant and her son in his native village Khanmha, Ambikapur; however, in the year 1985, the non-applicant assaulted her and sent her to Lakhanpur. For some time, the applicant resided at Lakhanpur with her son Harish Dubey, and thereafter, in 1985–86, she went along with her brother to the non-applicant’s native village Khanmha, Post Lohi, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa, but the non-applicant refused to keep her and their son, due to which she was compelled to return to Lakhanpur after a day or two. It was further stated that the non-applicant occasionally sent letters addressed to his son Harish but neglected to maintain 3 the applicant. During the subsistence of the applicant’s marriage, the non-applicant contracted a second marriage with a woman named Geeta Dubey, from whom he has two children, Deepak alias Girish and Sandeep. She further submits that due to lack of financial hardship, she prayed before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. 3. Notice of the proceedings was duly served upon the present non- applicant Mahesh Dubey, who thereafter filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application. The learned Family Court framed three issues and examined the applicant Smt. Sharda Dubey as A.W.-1 and her witness Parasnath Barik as A.W.-2, and after their examination and cross-examination, examined the non- applicant Mahesh Dubey as N.A.W.-1 and his witness Bholenath Chaturvedi as N.A.W.-2; after hearing arguments and considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024, dismissed the application on the ground that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was not valid and was void and therefore the applicant was not entitled for maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 01.08.2024, the applicant has filed the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court acted with material irregularities and without properly considering the evidence adduced by the applicant, wrongly dismissed the application for maintenance, which is bad in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had duly proved her case 4 through cogent and reliable evidence and therefore dismissal of the application is wholly unjustified. The learned Family Court adopted an improper and illegal approach in rejecting the maintenance claim and such dismissal is neither just nor proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that at the time of marriage the non-applicant was below 18 years of age and therefore the marriage was not legal and was void which finding is unsustainable in law. Even the non- applicant admitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized, but only disputed its validity on the ground of his age being about 17 years at the time of marriage; however, the learned Family Court erred in law in treating the marriage as void and rejecting the maintenance application of the applicant solely on that ground, without considering the legal position and other material evidence on record. This finding is contrary to the material available on record and against the settled principles of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the basis of an alleged marriage with the non-applicant. The learned Family Court, after framing issues and appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by both parties, recorded a categorical finding that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was not legally valid, as at the time of the alleged marriage the non-applicant was below 18 years of age. The learned Court further observed that the applicant failed to establish a legally enforceable marital relationship in accordance with law, which is a sine qua non for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The evidence on record was considered in detail, including the statements of the witnesses examined by both sides and the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that in absence of proof of a valid marriage, the applicant could not be treated as a legally wedded wife. On this basis, the learned Family Court dismissed the application vide order dated 01.08.2024. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal