1 CGHC010081842025 2026:CGHC:36258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 322 of 2025 Dhanush Alias Raja Singh Satnami S/o Jhumuklal Mahatke Aged About 58 Years (Wrongly Mentioned Order Sheet Family Court Age 40yrs) R/o Banraka, Tehsil And P.S. Khamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Mongra Bai W/o Dhanush Alias Raja Singh Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Banraka, Tehsil And P.S. Khamariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh . Presently Residing At Kosmanda, Teshil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 2led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It Is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to Quash/Set-aside the modify the impugned Order Dated 06.12.2024, Passed By Judge, Family Court Kabirdham, District:- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Kabirdham, in MJC No. 22/2024 in Case of Smt. Mongra Bai Vs. Dhanush Alias Raja Singh Satnami which is (ANNEXURE A/1), This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass Such order as it may deems :t under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present applicant/husband has preferred the instant revision being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 2led by the respondent/wife, has been partly allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent from the date of 2ling of the application. The case of the respondent before the learned Family Court was that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized about 24 years ago in accordance with social customs and rituals and out of their matrimonial relationship, a son namely Mukesh was born. It was alleged that the applicant used to assault and ill-treat her and repeatedly drive her out of the matrimonial home, and after the birth of their son, when he was about six to seven years old, the applicant 2nally refused to keep the respondent and their son with him. It was further alleged that the applicant started living with another woman namely Bhuri @ Sampat Bai and refused to maintain the respondent, who thereafter remained dependent upon her aged and 2nancially weak parents. The respondent further alleged that she had no source of income, whereas the applicant 3 was engaged in agricultural activities, possessed about 12 acres of agricultural land with irrigation facilities and also owned a tractor and thresher machine, from which he was earning su>cient income. 3. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and disputed the existence of any matrimonial relationship or son with the respondent, stating that he had been living with Bhuri Bai as his wife for about 30 years and had two sons from her. He further pleaded that he had no agricultural land or independent source of income and, on account of illness and age, was dependent upon his sons. 4. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, including the a>davits regarding the 2nancial and vocational status of the parties furnished in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Others, the learned Family Court found that the respondent was an illiterate housewife having no income, whereas the applicant had disclosed his occupation as none and income as nil. However, considering that there was no material establishing any physical or mental disability of the applicant and that he was capable of earning, the learned Family Court held him to be a person having su>cient means and, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, respective living conditions and needs of the respondent, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred by the 4 applicant/husband. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in holding the applicant liable to pay maintenance to the respondent, despite the applicant’s speci2c case that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife and that no valid matrimonial relationship was ever subsisting between them. It is submitted that the applicant’s earlier marriage was solemnized with one Kunti Bai, resident of Village Dargava, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Kawardha, from whom he has two daughters, and the said marriage has not been dissolved. Thereafter, after separation from Kunti Bai, the applicant entered into a customary marriage with Bhuri Bai in accordance with the prevailing rites and customs, and has been living with her as his wife for about 30 years, out of which wedlock two sons were born. She further submits that the applicant has speci2cally denied having any matrimonial relationship with the respondent or having any son from her and has stated that he came to know about the respondent and her child only after the institution of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the respondent had earlier been married to a person of Village Dargava and has herself admitted the said fact, besides receiving an amount of Rs.1,000/- under the Mahatari Vandan Yojana of the Government of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, the respondent cannot claim maintenance from the applicant without 2rst establishing a valid marriage between the parties. 5 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly relied upon the documents and statements produced by the respondent, including the school admission certi2cate marked as Ex.A/2 and the alleged consent letter marked as Ex.A/1, despite the applicant’s speci2c objection regarding their authenticity and relevance, as the name mentioned in the school record does not correspond with the applicant and the alleged consent letter does not bear the respondent’s signature. It is further submitted that the son of the respondent has also instituted Civil Suit No.14-A/2023 against the applicant, his wife and sons, which is still pending adjudication, and the mere description of a family tree, without proper proof of the alleged relationship, could not have been treated as su>cient evidence of marriage. She further submits that the applicant is aged about 57 years, has no independent source of income and is dependent upon his sons, and that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate these material circumstances and the defence raised by the applicant. Therefore, according to learned counsel, in the absence of proof of a valid marriage between the applicant and respondent, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable against the applicant and the impugned order awarding maintenance deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, 6 the evidence adduced by them and the material available on record, has rightly adjudicated the application preferred by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Family Court has duly considered the respective pleadings and rival contentions of the parties, the respondent’s assertion regarding her matrimonial relationship with the applicant, her present 2nancial condition and absence of any independent source of income, as well as the applicant’s defence regarding his alleged lack of income and earning capacity. The learned Court below has also taken into consideration the a>davits regarding the educational, vocational and 2nancial status of the parties furnished in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Others. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the learned Family Court found that the respondent was an illiterate housewife having no independent income, whereas the applicant, despite claiming that he had no source of income, had failed to establish any physical or mental disability which rendered him incapable of earning. The learned Court below has, therefore, rightly drawn an inference regarding the applicant’s capacity to earn and his ability to provide maintenance to the respondent. While determining the quantum, the learned Family Court has also considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the respective living conditions and status of the parties, the age and reasonable requirements of the respondent and the 2nancial capacity of the applicant, and has thereafter awarded a modest amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the application. The amount so 7 awarded cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable, rather it appears to be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances brought on record. Thus, the impugned order reGects proper application of mind and due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 2nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in2rmity 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. 11. Let a certi2ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan