1 2026:CGHC:26575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 788 of 2026 Smt. Radhika Suman @ Shayna Parveen W/o- Ghanshyam Suman, Aged About 39 Years R/o- Bhathagaon, Post And Police Station- Koshir, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh (C.G.) At Present R/o-Ward No. 13 Khongapani, Police Station- Jhagrakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- M. C. B. (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ghanshyam Suman S/o- Ramdas Suman, Aged About 39 Years R/o- Bhathagaon, Post And Police Station - Koshir, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), (Now District - M.C.B. (C.G.) in ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.01 11:24:11 +0530 2 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 178/2025 in the case titled as "Smt. Radhika Suman @ Shayna Parveen Vs. Ghanshyam Suman" (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.06.2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baijnathpara, Raipur, in accordance with Arya Samaj rites. Thereafter, the applicant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife. After about three years, the applicant fell seriously ill. As the respondent was unwilling to bear the expenses of her treatment, he left her at her parental house at Khongapani and thereafter deserted her. Since then, she has been residing at Khongapani and undergoing treatment with the financial assistance provided by her parents. It is further stated that she is suffering from cancer, for the treatment of which she has been incurring substantial medical expenses. Due to financial constraints, she has been unable to obtain proper treatment for her ailment. Subsequently, she came to know that the respondent had solemnized a second marriage with a lady namely Kavita. The applicant further stated that the respondent is working as an Assistant Grade-III at the Community Health Centre, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, and is earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary. It is further alleged that he is also earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month from agricultural activities. Therefore, seeking maintenance as well as financial assistance for her medical treatment, the applicant prayed for grant of Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance from the respondent. 4. In reply to the application, the respondent denied that the applicant is his legally wedded wife or that any marriage was ever solemnized between 3 them. He further stated that the applicant is a Muslim whereas he is a Hindu, and therefore, he never resided with her as husband and wife. The respondent further stated that he came into contact with the applicant through social media. According to him, out of sympathy and friendship, he extended financial assistance to the applicant, who used to request money by stating that she was suffering from cancer and that her father was also suffering from a serious ailment requiring medical treatment. The respondent further stated that between April 2021 and September 2025, he transferred a total amount of Rs. 9,07,900/- to the applicant through online transactions on various dates and also paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash. Thus, according to him, the applicant received a total amount of Rs. 12,07,900/- from him. He alleged that the applicant, by blackmailing him, obtained the said amount and, in order to avoid returning the money, falsely claimed to be his wife. He further stated that he has legally solemnized marriage with his wife, Kavita, and is living with her as husband and wife. He also contended that in all her medical records the applicant has described herself as Shayna Parveen and has never changed her name to Radhika Suman. The respondent further submitted that after deductions, he receives a salary of only Rs. 29,400/- per month, out of which he maintains his wife and children. He further stated that his wife is also suffering from illness, due to which he has borrowed money and is under financial hardship. He denied having any income from agriculture. According to him, the applicant is an educated lady who earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month by giving tuition classes and stitching clothes. He further alleged that the applicant is residing in a house situated in the Colliery area, equipped with three air conditioners, and is living as the wife of Ramroop Choudhary. He asserted that the present application has been filed with mala fide 4 intention by suppressing and misrepresenting material facts. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Family Court framed the issues and, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Although the learned Family Court recorded a finding that the applicant was unable to maintain herself, it rejected her claim for maintenance and dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 19.05.2026. He submits that the learned Family Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the legality and validity of the marriage. The learned Family Court was not competent to adjudicate upon the validity of the marriage by appreciating the evidence, namely Exhibit A/1 (Marriage Certificate), Exhibit A/2 (Purification Certificate), and the photographs of the marriage. He also submits that the applicant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife after their marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baijnathpara, Raipur, in accordance with Arya Samaj rites. Thereafter, when the applicant was diagnosed with cancer, the non-applicant left her at Khongapani and deserted her without providing any maintenance. Consequently, the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. However, the learned Family Court framed an issue regarding the legality of the marriage and held that, since the applicant belongs to the Muslim faith and, in view of the judgment in Ashish Mourya v. Anamika Dhiman, a marriage solemnized 5 by Arya Samaj and the certificates issued by it do not, by themselves, establish the legality of the marriage, the applicant had failed to prove the marriage by cogent evidence. Accordingly, the learned Family Court held that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was not proved to be a valid marriage and, therefore, denied the applicant the status of the legally wedded wife of the respondent. He also submits that in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a beneficial and social welfare provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that where a long-standing relationship between the parties is established by the evidence on record, a presumption of a valid marriage arises. Therefore, the applicant ought to have been treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent and granted maintenance. He submits that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the marriage. The Exhibits A/1 and A/2 themselves establish that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.06.2017. The testimony of PW-2, Ramroop Choudhary, establishes that the applicant and the respondent were living together as husband and wife from 2017 to 2022, until the applicant was diagnosed with cancer. In his evidence, the respondent admitted that there were monetary transactions between him and the applicant from April 2021 to September 2025, which corroborates the existence of a close and matrimonial relationship between the parties. The respondent solemnized the marriage with the applicant in accordance with Arya Samaj rites and actively participated in the marriage ceremony. Prior to the marriage, the applicant underwent Shuddhi Sanskar, accepted the 6 Vedic faith and Arya Samaj, and thereafter adopted the name Radhika Arya. He further submits that the learned Family Court erred in failing to properly appreciate the evidence of applicant Witness No. 1 and applicant Witness No. 2, both of whom categorically proved that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 144 of the BNSS on the ground that she had failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Although the learned Family Court recorded a finding that the applicant was unable to maintain herself, it held that, in the absence of proof of a valid marital relationship between the parties, she was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek