Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. Rahul
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:27068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 108 of 2021 Smt. Triveni Yadav W/o Shri Rahul @ Yogendra Paikra Aged About 38 Years R/o Housing Board Colony Block No. 36, Kachna P/s Vidhansabha District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rahul @ Yogendra Paikra S/o Not Mention Aged About 28 Years R/o Constable Mana Battalion Mana P/s Mana Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore humbly and respectfully pray to this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned award awarded by the family Court, in the interest of justice.” 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and the non-applicant was took place in the year 2011, as per chudi pratha thereafter, they both were living as husband and wife further from previous husband, the applicant has one daugher. The present non- applicant lives with the applicant as husband and wife till 12.02.2017 and suddenly, the non-applicant left the house of the applicant. Thereafter, she was preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance. 4. The statement of her daughter namely Temin Bai recorded as witness, who is stated that her mother informed that the non- applicant married her as ritual of chudi pratha and also stated before the Court that the non-applicant live with her mother in their home for last five year. The trial Court recorded the statement of the witness, come to the conclusion that the present applicant failed to proof that she is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned family Court wrongly and without considering the fact and circumstance of the case, and document available on record. He further submits that it is clear from the statement of the witness that the present non- applicant was live with the applicant as husband and wife, this fact is also not appreciated while deciding the case of the maintenance. 3 The “Chudi Pratha” is also a part of the ritual of marriage in some were and it is valid marriage is declared by the society. He further submits that the applicant is very poor lady she have no income to take care of herself because the applicant is live with the non- applicant can’t exploit her and left to give upon. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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, it transpires that the applicant, in her testimony, stated that the non-applicant established a sexual relationship after putting bangles on her. However, at the final argument stage, on 15.07.2019, the Court gave the applicant an opportunity to present testimony of someone with knowledge of the marital status, and she submitted the testimony of her daughter, Temin Yadav. Even she did not state that the non-applicant married her mother by putting bangles on her. It is worth noting that in cross- examination, Temin Yadav/her daughter admitted that when someone gets married through the chudi ceremony, people from society are present and a photographer is usually there. The applicant has not presented any such written/documentary evidence. No neighbors or other persons were examined, who could have confirmed that they had seen the two parties living or behaving like husband and wife. According to Temin Bai/daughter, the non- applicant lived in their house for 5 years. However, mere residence in someone’s house does not constitute adequate evidence of a 4 marital relationship.In these circumstances, based on the applicant’s statement alone, it would not be justifiable to conclude that Triveni Yadav and Rahul had acquired the status of husband and wife. Accordingly, the statements of applicant and her daughter do not establish that the applicant had acquired the status of wife of non-applicant. The non-applicant has clearly stated that he met the applicant only when he had brought an accused to Raipur Court, and after that, they had no contact. However, the evidence does show that based on the applicant’s report, a case under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the non-applicant Yogendra and another person named Rakesh. Further, it is not necessary to prove a legally valid marriage under Section 125 CrPC in order to claim maintenance. If a man and woman are perceived and accepted by society as husband and wife, the woman may be treated as a wife under the purview of Section 125 CrPC. However, the applicant has failed to establish such a scenario. A case under Section 376 IPC is registered against the non-applicant. Considering all above circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant did not acquire the status of wife of the non-applicant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the application submitted by the applicant before the trial Court was rejected. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 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. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal