1 CGHC010132872025 2026:CGHC:36350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 471 of 2025 Smt. Bhuneshwari W/o Firuram Gandharv Aged About 30 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh, At Present R/o Village Chhapora, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Firuram Gandharv S/o Jagmohan Gandharv Aged About 62 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-Applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08-01-2025 (Annexure A-1) and also be pleased to direct the non-applicant/husband to pay maintenance amount as claim in the application under section 125 of CRPC *led before the learned Family Court, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present applicant/wife preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the non-applicant/husband. It was the case of the applicant that she had obtained divorce from her 4rst husband, while the 4rst wife of the non-applicant had already expired, and thereafter the applicant and non-applicant solemnized marriage on 25.01.2014 at a temple situated at Raigarh, in accordance with their customary rites and ceremonies, and a marriage deed was also executed on stamp paper. It was further pleaded that after the marriage, the parties resided together in the house of the applicant and, subsequently, a marriage certi4cate was issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir on 22.11.2017. According to the applicant, during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship, the non-applicant started making allegations against her regarding her alleged relationship with another person and objected to her talking to others over mobile phone, and in the year 2018, he drove her out of the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that the applicant lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh on 08.07.2018, pursuant to which the non-applicant took her back with him but thereafter again subjected her to physical assault after consuming liquor, extended threats and obtained her signatures on various stamp papers, and subsequently again drove her out of the house. The applicant further pleaded that the non-applicant was a retired employee of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Raigarh, was receiving pension of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month and was also running a 3 grocery shop and possessing a two-storeyed house, one portion of which was allegedly let out for rent of about Rs.18,000/- per month, and therefore, had su@cient means to maintain her and pay the claimed maintenance. 3. The non-applicant opposed the application and denied the allegations levelled by the applicant, contending that she had never obtained a valid divorce from her 4rst husband and had fraudulently entered into marriage with him. It was further pleaded that the applicant had herself left the matrimonial home and had even got her name recorded as his wife in his service records by misrepresentation. The non-applicant further submitted that he was maintaining himself and his family from his pension and that, pursuant to an agreement dated 12.11.2018, the applicant had already received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards maintenance and the matrimonial relationship between the parties had thereafter come to an end. 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the necessary issues, whereafter both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and exhibited the relevant documents. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, documents and statements of the parties, the learned Family Court found that the applicant had failed to establish her entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and accordingly rejected her application for grant of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred by the applicant/wife. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, contrary to the material available on record and suDers from non-application of mind, as the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and documents in their proper perspective and has thereby defeated the object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the applicant had already placed on record the relevant documents evidencing her divorce from her 4rst husband, but the learned Family Court failed to consider the same while adjudicating her entitlement to maintenance. He further submits that the non-applicant himself admitted that he had solemnized marriage with the applicant after the death of his 4rst wife, which admission substantially supports the applicant’s case regarding the matrimonial relationship between the parties. It is further submitted that the applicant had made complaints on various occasions against the non-applicant regarding her ill-treatment, physical and mental harassment and being driven out of the matrimonial home, but the said material has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. He submits that the non-applicant is a retired employee and is receiving pension of approximately Rs.35,000/- per month and, therefore, possesses su@cient means to maintain the applicant, whereas the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. It is further contended that the learned Family Court has rejected the application primarily by relying upon variations in the dates of marriage appearing in diDerent 5 documents, without properly appreciating the admitted fact and other evidence regarding the matrimonial relationship between the parties. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to record cogent and legally sustainable reasons for denying maintenance to the applicant and has not properly considered the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself; therefore, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 deserves to be set aside and the applicant’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves to be reconsidered and allowed in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them and the material available on record, has rightly adjudicated the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Court below has carefully considered the rival contentions regarding the alleged matrimonial relationship between the parties, the applicant’s claim of having obtained divorce from her 4rst husband, the documents relied upon by her in support of the alleged marriage with the non-applicant, as well as the defence taken by the non-applicant disputing the validity of such marriage. The learned Family Court has also examined the documents and statements of the parties in their entirety and has noticed the discrepancies appearing in the documents concerning 6 the date and circumstances of the alleged marriage, as well as the material relied upon by the applicant to establish her status as the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Court below found that the applicant had failed to satisfactorily establish a valid and legally subsisting marriage with the non-applicant so as to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has also considered the respective 4nancial circumstances of the parties and the other material circumstances brought on record, but in the absence of satisfactory proof of the foundational fact of a valid marriage, rightly declined to grant maintenance. Thus, the impugned order reHects due application of mind and proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and documents available on record. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certi4ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan