1 CGHC010146192025 2026:CGHC:35606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 506 of 2025 Niranjan Sahu S/o Gosairam Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bhaiso, P.S. And Tehsil - Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Rajni Sahu W/o Niranjan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o L.I.G. Bhawan, Q.No. S 7/479, Dindayal Awas, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2024 (Niranjan Sahu Vs. Smt. Rajni Sahu), arising out of the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No. 06/2016 (Smt. Rajni Sahu Vs. Niranjan Sahu), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent towards monthly maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent, Smt. Rajni Sahu filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, seeking relief against the applicant/non-applicant. It was alleged that her marriage with Badri Singh was solemnized, who used to consume liquor and assault her, due to which she was residing at her parental home along with her five children. It was further alleged that the applicant/non-applicant was residing in the rented house of the brother of respondent No.1 and that the parties had undergone a customary “Chudi Vivah”. The applicant/non- applicant denied the allegations and filed his reply before the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 10.07.2024, the learned Trial Court allowed the application and directed the applicant/non- applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance, with adjustment against any amount received pursuant to an order or settlement of any other Court or authority. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant/non-applicant preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from 3 Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2025. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders dated 05.03.2025 and 10.07.2024 are illegal and contrary to law, as the Courts below failed to appreciate that respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and the parties are not residing together. The respondent had earlier filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed by the Family Court on 14.11.2011, and the revision against the same was also dismissed by this Court on 11.04.2018. He further submits that respondent again filed a maintenance application in M.C.C. No. 680/2016, which was dismissed on 09.03.2017, and the revision preferred against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.2017. Thus, according to the applicant, the claim of respondent No.1 for maintenance has already been considered and rejected in earlier proceedings, which fact has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. He later submits that the applicant is a person having 50% disability and is unable to work and earn sufficiently, as supported by his disability certificate. The Courts below further failed to consider that respondent No.1 has five children and has subsequently remarried. On these grounds, the applicant submits that the award of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is unsustainable and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial Court allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent towards monthly maintenance, holding that although the respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, the parties had lived together for a considerable period as husband and wife and, therefore, their relationship was in the nature of marriage, falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Act. The learned appellate Court, after considering the previous maintenance proceedings and the evidence regarding their long-standing cohabitation in a shared household, found no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal under Section 29 of the Act. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, I am of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Courts’ within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil