1 CGHC010042532025 2026:CGHC:35958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 162 of 2025 Roopprakash Anant S/o Shri Aatmaram Aged About 30 Years Village Dharmpura, Tahsil And Thana - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus Soniya Anant W/o Roop Prakash Anant Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dharampura, Tahsil And Thana - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.). --- Present R/o Ramhepur, Thana And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision petition has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, in (Soniya Anant Vs. Roop Prakash Anant), whereby the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of ;ling of the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the applicant. In the said application, it was pleaded that after the death of her ;rst husband, namely, Sanjay Chaturvedi, son of Babulal Chaturvedi, who died about three to four years after their marriage, she started residing with her parents. During that period, she came in contact with the present applicant about 11-12 years prior to ;ling of the application. It was alleged that the applicant, on the pretext of marrying her, developed physical relations with her and kept her in a rented house situated at Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, where they resided together as husband and wife for about 11-12 years. It was further averred that thereafter, on 20.05.2022, the parties solemnized their marriage by performing 'Chudi Marriage (Bangle Marriage)' as per prevailing customs and thereafter started residing together as husband and wife. It was further alleged that when the non-applicant conceived, the applicant and his family members started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty and assaulted her on several occasions. It was further alleged that ultimately she was driven out from the matrimonial home and was left at her parental house. The non- applicant further pleaded that despite repeated requests, the applicant neither took her back nor made any arrangement for her 3 maintenance. It was also pleaded that the applicant owns about 10- 12 acres of agricultural land and further possesses about 5 acres of agricultural land situated at Village Khudiya, from which he earns approximately Rs.7,00,000/- annually. Besides agricultural income, it was further pleaded that the applicant also earns about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month from his tractor and rotavator business. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the non- applicant sought maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month from the applicant before the learned Family Court concerned. 4. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and ;led his detailed reply denying each and every allegation levelled against him. It was speci;cally pleaded that the applicant had never married the non-applicant at any point of time and, therefore, there existed no relationship of husband and wife between them. The applicant further contended that the allegations regarding their alleged marriage performed on 20.05.2022 by way of customary Chudi Marriage were wholly false, fabricated and concocted. The applicant further pleaded that the allegation that the parties resided together at Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur for about 11-12 years as husband and wife was also incorrect and had been made only with an intention to extract money from him. It was further submitted that the non-applicant had deliberately concealed her correct age before the learned Family Court and had not approached the Court with clean hands. The applicant further alleged that the non-applicant had on several occasions demanded money as well as agricultural land from him and when he refused to 4 ful;l such illegal demands, she threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case of rape and thereafter ;led the present maintenance proceedings only to harass him. It was speci;cally pleaded that as the non-applicant was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. Both the parties thereafter adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings before the learned Family Court. 6. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties, recording the evidence adduced by them and appreciating the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that the non-applicant had been able to establish her entitlement to claim maintenance from the applicant. Consequently, by order dated 16.12.2024, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of ;ling of the application. Being dissatis;ed with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest illegality in passing the impugned order without properly appreciating the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the non-applicant is 5 not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the entire case of the non-applicant is based upon an alleged live-in relationship and a so- called customary "Chudi Marriage", which has neither been proved in accordance with law nor supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. Learned counsel would further submit that the non- applicant herself admitted that she was previously married to one Sanjay Chaturvedi and after his death she started residing at her parental house. Thereafter, she alleged that she remained in a relationship with the applicant for about 11-12 years, however, except her bald statement, no independent documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the parties ever resided together as husband and wife. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the essential requirement for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been established. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has completely ignored the speci;c defence taken by the applicant that the non-applicant had concealed her actual age before the Court and had not approached the Court with clean hands. It is also contended that the non-applicant had repeatedly demanded money as well as agricultural land from the applicant and, upon refusal, threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case and thereafter instituted the present proceedings only to pressurize the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has misread the evidence available on record and has recorded ;ndings contrary to 6 the material placed before it. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. 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 learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the entire material available on record. 10.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings of both the parties, their respective oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter recorded detailed ;ndings while deciding the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court has appreciated the evidence produced by both the parties and after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the non-applicant had succeeded in establishing her entitlement to claim maintenance from the applicant. Consequently, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of ;ling of the application. The maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Rather, the amount awarded is reasonable keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the object sought to be achieved 7 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, to prevent destitution and vagrancy. 11.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and ;nding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of ;ling of application, 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. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. OEce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal