1 CGHC010314622026 2026:CGHC:38103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1099 of 2026 Sanjay Shrivastava S/o Late Ramesh Shrivastava, Aged About 48 Years Batch No. 88 Currently Posted Head Constable, R/o In Front Of Manharad Lal Pandey House , 27 Kholi Bilaspur, P. S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Current Residence Hemu Nagar Sai Temple, Dabbu Gali P. S. Torva, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Rekha Shrivastava D/o Late Bachchu Verma, Aged About 48 Years R/o Hemu Nagar, Near Transformer Murra Bhatta, P. S. Torva, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.07.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.457/2021, whereby the application preferred by the non- applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 seeking maintenance, has been partly allowed and the learned Family Court has directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the non-applicant from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred by the applicant. 2. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that the non-applicant had =led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Family Court, stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 21.08.2014 at Mahamaya Temple, Ratanpur, in the presence of witnesses and thereafter she had resided with the applicant from 21.08.2014 to 19.06.2019. It was pleaded that the applicant was working as a Head Constable in the Police Department at Bilaspur and was earning approximately Rs.56,000/- per month. It was further alleged that at the time of the marriage, the non-applicant was a widow, whereas the applicant was already married and had two children, but he had represented to her that he was divorced from his =rst wife and on such representation, had entered into a relationship with her and subsequently married her. It was further alleged that the non-applicant had become =nancially incapable of maintaining herself as her contracting business had come to an end and after an amount of approximately Rs.55,00,000/- had been taken away from her and her contract work in the Municipal Corporation had stopped, the applicant had abandoned her and started threatening her. It was also alleged that the applicant was 3 residing with one Mrs. Madhushila Surjal, a Sub-Inspector posted in the oBce of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, and was enjoying his own salary as well as the income of the said lady. On these allegations, the non-applicant had claimed maintenance of Rs.28,000/- per month from the applicant. 3. In his reply, the applicant had denied the alleged marriage with the non-applicant as well as the other allegations made against him. It was his case that the non-applicant was not a widow as alleged and was a married woman and had also changed her own name as well as the name of her husband. The applicant had further stated that the non-applicant was the President of Mahila Dirghadrishti Self- Help Group and was engaged in the cleaning contract of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, along with other members of the group. He had denied having any matrimonial or live-in relationship with the non-applicant or having resided with her from 21.08.2014 to 19.06.2019. He had also denied the allegations regarding misappropriation of her movable or immovable property and had contended that the photographs relied upon by the non-applicant were forged and false. It was further stated that the applicant did not own any independent house and was residing in his ancestral house and that the Bullet motorcycle had been purchased by him through a loan from SBI Bank, Ratanpur Branch. He had also denied owning any Innova car or any house at Uslapur. The applicant had further denied having ever administered any poisonous substance or betel leaf to the non-applicant. On these grounds, he had prayed for dismissal of the application =led by the non-applicant. 4 4. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2026, came to the conclusion that the non-applicant was unable to maintain herself and that the applicant had suBcient means to maintain her. Accordingly, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the non-applicant from the date of passing of the order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed illegality and material irregularity in appreciating the evidence and holding the non-applicant to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant and in granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that both parties were already married and their respective earlier marriages were subsisting and therefore, no valid marital relationship could have been recognized between them. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has erroneously relied upon the alleged live-in relationship and misconstrued the orders passed by this Court, without properly appreciating the legal requirements for claiming maintenance. He further submits that the non-applicant was independently involved in municipal cleaning work through a self- help group and had suBcient means to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was not in active service and his alleged income was not duly proved. It is, therefore, submitted that the =nding regarding 5 the applicant's liability to pay maintenance, as well as the quantum of Rs.5,000/- per month, is contrary to the evidence and law and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, has recorded a =nding that the applicant and the non- applicant had lived together in a live-in relationship and that the non-applicant had suBcient reason to live separately from the applicant. The learned Family Court has further found that the non- applicant was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant, being a healthy and able-bodied person, had suBcient means and capacity to maintain her. While recording the aforesaid =ndings, the learned Family Court has also taken into consideration the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by this Court in CRMP No.2782/2025 and upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of the order. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the material available on record, this Court does not =nd any cogent ground warranting interference with the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court. The amount so 6 awarded cannot be said to be either excessive or inadequate so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the =nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in=rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OBce is directed to send a certi=ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal