1 2026:CGHC:5565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 438 of 2024 Rajendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Kashidas Vaishnav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Barbaspur, Post- Itawa, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sawana Vaishnav W/o Rajendra Kumar Vaishnav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Dewangan Atta Chakki, Santra Badi, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, appearing, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision application and set aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:22:11 +0530 2 impugned orders dated 03.04.2024 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1135/2022 and set aside the order of maintenance under section 125 CRPC against the present applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent–wife has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife and that their marriage was solemnized about 25 years ago as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. It is worthy to mention that out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with one male child, namely Mangal Vaishnav, who is presently aged about 24 years. It is stated that the marriage was an arranged marriage and that both the parties, of their own free will, happily solemnized the same. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the respondent, in her application, has stated that during the initial days of marriage everything was cordial; however, after some time, it is alleged by the respondent– wife that after about 10 years of marriage, the behaviour of the applicant towards her changed and he started ill-treating her. It is further alleged that the applicant–husband developed an illicit relationship with another woman and, due to the said reason, he continuously harassed the respondent. It is also alleged that the applicant brought another woman, namely Kaushailya, to the house, who was already the mother of four children, and when the respondent objected to the same, she was assaulted by the applicant. It is further alleged in the application that on 10.07.2022, the applicant performed a second marriage and abandoned the respondent–wife. It is also alleged that the applicant sent photographs of his alleged marriage to the relatives of the respondent through WhatsApp. It is contended that the applicant, without obtaining a 3 divorce, performed a second marriage and left the respondent without any just or sufÏcient reason. It is worthy to mention that the respondent– wife, on 12.07.2022, made a written complaint before the Police Authorities at Mahila Thana, Durg, wherein a report under Section 155 Cr.P.C. was prepared and she was advised to approach the Hon’ble Court. It is further contended by the respondent–wife that she has no source of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself. It is alleged that the applicant–husband is presently working in a movie theatre at Durg and is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-. It is further alleged that the applicant owns a house and agricultural land. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the respondent–wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Durg, praying for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., notices were issued to the applicant–husband, pursuant to which he entered appearance before the learned Family Court and filed his reply. In the reply, the applicant categorically denied the allegations made by the respondent and stated that he has never married the respondent and that Mangal Vaishnav is not his son, but is the son of one Khemlal Gond. It was further stated that the applicant and the respondent had gone to Durg in search of work and, during that period, they met on a few occasions as they belong to the same village, namely Barbaspur. The applicant further stated that he is legally married to Anjulata Vaishnav, who is his first and lawful wife, and that the respondent is not his wife. It was also contended that the respondent has falsely stated the facts in her application and that the respondent, along with her son, is earning Rs. 1,000/- per day. It was further submitted that the applicant is a poor person and has a family to maintain. 4 5. The applicant also raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, stating that the respondent’s native village is Barbaspur, Tehsil Khairagarh, and therefore, the Court at Khairagarh alone has jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was further stated that the respondent belongs to the Sahu community, had married Khemlal Gond, and that Mangal was born out of the said wedlock. It was specifically denied that the applicant had any relationship or marital tie with the respondent. Accordingly, dismissal of the application was prayed for. 6. The learned Family Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the statements and documents on record, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the present applicant had raised probable and plausible defences by asserting and proving that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife, and had also produced documents in support of the said contention. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent–wife did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the alleged income of the applicant, nor did she produce any revenue records to substantiate her claim that the applicant owns agricultural land. It is further submitted that in her cross-examination, the respondent admitted that she is presently residing with her son, who is earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the respondent–wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court committed a grave error in not considering that the applicant is a poor person and a daily wager, and is legally married to Anjulata Vaishnav, with whom he has 5 two children. The applicant is under a legal obligation to maintain his lawful family, and since the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, the order granting maintenance in her favour is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court further committed an error in not considering that the applicant has an aged and dependent mother, who is under continuous medical care and requires regular treatment due to various ailments. In view of these circumstances, the learned Family Court ought to have reduced the amount of maintenance, if not rejected the claim altogether. He further submits that the learned Family Court committed an error in solely accepting the contentions raised by the respondent–wife in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., without properly appreciating the defence and evidence led by the applicant. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the practice of making false assertions before the Court deserves to be discouraged, as such conduct undermines the dignity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. He also submits that the learned Family Court committed an error of law by accepting the documents tendered by the respondent–wife as admitted, without requiring the same to be proved in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 1135/2022. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this 6 Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek