1 2026:CGHC:7137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 413 of 2024 Suresh Banjare S/o Late Shri Mannu Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o Bandhwa Talab, Bhanpuri, Ward No. 5, Near Banjari Mata, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Devntin Banjare D/o Shri Mohan Baghel Aged About 49 Years W/o Suresh Banjare, R/o Azad Nagar, Ward No. 11, Ravanbhata, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 327/2020, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the non-applicant, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with an application for grant of interim maintenance. As per the pleaded case of the respondent, she was married to Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh (Gandre). Out of the said wedlock, three children—namely Jitendra, Gopal, and a daughter Chandrakala— were born. At the time of filing the application, the elder son was 26 years PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 14:08:09 +0530 2 old. The other children were also married and well settled. After the death of her husband, the respondent has been residing with her children. It is further pleaded that sometime in the year 2010, the respondent and the applicant worked together for a brief period in a small rolling factory. The applicant was acquainted with the respondent and used to visit her house, where he allegedly assured her of help. It is claimed that the applicant gave an assurance to marry her and that they lived together for some time. It is further pleaded that in the year 2020, the applicant married and has been living with his wife. Thereafter, the respondent filed the present application seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. 3. The applicant filed replies to both applications and categorically denied all the allegations made by the respondent. It is the specific case of the applicant that he worked for some time in a local factory at Bhanpuri, Raipur, where the respondent was also employed as a labourer. Thereafter, the applicant left the job, whereas the respondent continued working there. Beyond this limited acquaintance, the applicant had no relationship with the respondent, and there was never any relationship resembling that of husband and wife. It is further the case of the applicant that after the death of his father, he was appointed in the Railways on compassionate grounds. Taking advantage of this situation, the respondent attempted to extort money from the applicant on false pretexts. With this intention, she not only filed the present application for maintenance but also approached and misguided the applicant’s wife to file a complaint under Section 494 IPC, which was subsequently rejected by the competent court. The applicant has consistently maintained that the respondent has no locus standi to file the present application. It is further submitted that the name of Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh (Gandre) is 3 recorded as the husband of the respondent in all government records. The respondent has been availing all government benefits on that basis. The Passbook of Canara Bank, Ration Card issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Birgaon, District Raipur, Aadhaar Card issued by the Central Government, and Voter ID Card all mention Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh as her husband. These documents clearly establish that the applicant has no relationship whatsoever with the respondent and that she is misusing the legal forum for ulterior motives. 4. It is further contended that the respondent owns a house, is still working, and earns a substantial income through rental sources. She also owns a Safari car and earns income by operating a taxi service. In sum and substance, the respondent has sufficient independent means of income and is therefore not entitled to maintenance. Previously, the applicant had challenged the interim maintenance order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Family Court, Raipur, raising the following specific issues: (i) there exists no relationship between the applicant and the respondent, and therefore, the respondent has no locus to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; and (ii) the respondent has three adult, well-settled children from her earlier husband, Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh (Gandre), and if she was unable to maintain herself, she ought to have sought maintenance from them. This Hon’ble Court considered the aforesaid issues and completely stayed the operation and effect of the order dated 05.12.2022. Subsequently, on 10.11.2023, this Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing the details of her children. The respondent failed to comply with the said direction and did not file any affidavit. These issues were also raised before the learned Family Court, and copies of the orders passed by this Hon’ble High Court were duly submitted. However, the learned Family Court failed to consider the same. The learned Family 4 Court has utterly failed to properly appreciate and analyses the facts and documents on record. Despite the above circumstances, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and arbitrary in nature. It is based solely on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent did not file an affidavit disclosing details of her three well-settled adult children, despite a specific direction issued by this High Court. The respondent also failed to make necessary pleadings explaining why she sought maintenance exclusively from the applicant. The learned Family Court neither considered these vital legal and factual aspects nor framed any issue on this crucial point. Consequently, the impugned order is bad in law. The name of Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh is recorded as the husband of the Respondent in all official records, including the Passbook of Canara Bank, Ration Card issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Birgaon, District Raipur, Aadhaar Card issued by the Central Government, and Voter ID Card (Exhibits D-1 to D-4). In all these documents, the name of Shri Anup Gaykwadh is consistently shown as the husband of the respondent. These undisputed facts, supported by documentary evidence and the respondent’s own statements, clearly establish that the applicant has no relationship with the respondent. However, these material facts have not been considered by the learned Family Court in their proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned order is per se illegal, arbitrary, and amounts to a miscarriage of justice. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the possible misuse of this benevolent 5 provision and has clarified that merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand does not constitute a domestic relationship, much less a relationship in the nature of marriage. A certain degree of proof is required, and any presumption regarding the existence of such a relationship must be exercised judiciously. In the present case, the alleged relationship has been categorically denied by the Applicant, yet no issue was framed on this vital aspect. The statements and documents on record were not considered in their proper perspective. Consequently, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and has wider legal ramifications. It is well settled in law that although strict proof of marriage is not sine qua non in maintenance proceedings, some degree of proof is essential to establish that the parties lived together in society as husband and wife for a substantial period of time. No such evidence exists in the present case. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the discretion to presume such a relationship is subject to judicial discipline and is not unqualified. The respondent is residing with her three adult children from her husband Late Shri Anup Gaykwadh, namely: Jitendra (32 years), Gopal (28 years), and daughter Smt. Chandrakala (24 years). All of them are employed and earning. In such circumstances, it was neither just nor proper to pass the impugned order of maintenance against the Applicant, particularly when the very locus of the Respondent is under serious doubt. The applicant obtained his present employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father. He has an aged mother and two younger brothers to support, in addition to his wife. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, any haste in presuming the existence of a relationship or liability ought to have been avoided. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate these crucial aspects, rendering the impugned order highly unjustified and arbitrary. The respondent is not 6 entitled to maintenance, having misled the Court by suppressing material facts and making false claims.. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the respondent is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti