1 CGHC010197942026 2026:CGHC:27942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 746 of 2026 Akashdeep Manhar S/o Chabilal Manhar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bundela, Post Bodsara, Police Station Chakrabhatha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Manju Manhar W/o Akashdeep Manhar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bundela, Post Bodsara, Police Station Chakrabhatha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Jarhabhatha, Police Station Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “a) Set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 842/2023; b) Dismiss the application filed by the Respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; c) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that learned trial Court has gravely erred in holding that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.08 11:08:00 +0530 2 despite there being no cogent or legally admissible evidence to establish a valid marriage between the parties. The respondent alleged that a love marriage was solemnized on 24.12.2021 in a temple situated at Village Bundela according to Hindu rites and customs. However: (a) No priest, who allegedly solemnized the marriage, was examined; (b) No photographs, videos, or invitation card relating to the alleged marriage were produced; (c) No independent witness to the alleged marriage was examined; and (d) The alleged Panchayat certificate was not proved in accordance with law. The essential ceremonies required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, including Saptapadi, were neither pleaded nor proved by the respondent. 4. Learned trial Court erroneously presumed the existence of a valid marriage. Mere assumption cannot substitute the strict proof of marriage required under law. 5. In fact, no marriage ever took place between the parties. The respondent, out of her own volition and on account of her one-sided affection towards the Revisionist, came to the applicant’s house in his absence and stayed there for a short period, after which she was sent back by the family members of the Revisionist. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court, vide the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 842/2023, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent herein. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the facts and law. He contends that the learned Court erroneously presumed the existence of a marriage, whereas a 3 mere assumption cannot substitute the strict proof of marriage required under law. He further submits that, in fact, no marriage ever took place between the parties. It is further submitted that the respondent, of her own volition and due to one-sided affection, came to the applicant's house in his absence and stayed there for a short period, after which she was sent back by the applicant's family members. He further submits that there was never any cohabitation between the parties as husband and wife, nor did any marital relationship ever exist between them. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Court are based on conjectures and assumptions. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 12. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek