Komal Yadav W/o Shri Keshav Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 19 v. Keshav Yadav S/o
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:48569 NAFR CRR No. 297 of 2021 Komal Yadav W/o Shri Keshav Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Behind The Sharda Tempal Kasturaba Nagar, Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Keshav Yadav S/o Shri Santram Yadav Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Teacher In Govt. Primary School Dahi Bahra Navatola Pendra Road R/o Village Dahi Bahra Nava Tola Pendra Road, Police Station And Tahsil And District Pendra Road Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) For Non-applicant(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.88/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the 2 applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that their marriage was solemnized on 24/12/2001 at Mahamaya Tempal as per Hindu Custom. After marriage, the applicant resided with the non- applicant at his house in Dahi Bahra, and during this period a son, Gopal Yadav, was born, who is presently residing with the applicant. After marriage, the behavior of the non-applicant towards the applicant was not proper, yet somehow the applicant continued to tolerate his cruel conduct and kept residing with him. In the year 2006, the family members of the non-applicant left the applicant at her parents’ house at Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, and since then the non-applicant has not taken her back to live with him. She has been residing at Bilaspur along with her son Gopal Yadav since then. It is further stated by the applicant that despite several requests, the non-applicant did not take the applicant and their son to live with him. From other sources, it has been learned that the non-applicant has married another woman and for this reason he does not wish to keep the applicant with him. The applicant, along with her son, is residing in Bilaspur and is somehow managing her livelihood with great difficulty by working in a private hospital. Considering the expenses of her son’s education and household needs, in the present inflation the applicant has become completely unable to maintain herself. The non-applicant is employed as a Shikshakarmi Grade-III at Mati 3 Kachar, Khamlikhurd, and is receiving a salary of about Rs. 40,000/- per month. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed for grant of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the non-applicant. 3. After issuing notices to the present non-applicant, he appeared and filed his reply and opposed the application filed by wife on the ground that she is not his legally wedded wife and accepting son namely Gopal. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court decided the matter and vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2021, dismissed the application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant/wife Komal is not his legally wedded wife. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2019, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 88/2019, seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month on the ground of cruelty and neglect. It was specifically pleaded that the non-applicant/husband is working as an Assistant Teacher in a Government School and is earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per month apart from having 05 acres of agricultural land and other sources of income. It is further submitted that the record of the Family Court itself clearly establishes that the applicant/wife Komal is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. The applicant produced before the Family Court various documents duly exhibited 4 and collectively filed as Annexure – R/2. Along with her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicant also filed (i) relevant pages of the service book of the non-applicant wherein the names of the applicant Komal and her son Gopal are recorded, (ii) photographs of the marriage ceremony performed at Mahamaya Temple, (iii) photographs with relatives, and (iv) photographs of their son with the parents of the non-applicant. It is also significant to note that the non-applicant himself filed an afÏdavit before the Family Court, Bilaspur, admitting therein that the applicant is his wife. Moreover, in one of its earlier orders, the Family Court specifically recorded a finding that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife. The applicant is having a son, namely Gopal, who is residing with Non-applicant. She is living in extremely poor economic condition. Her son is presently pursuing B.Sc. Part-I after passing Class 12th, but all educational and household expenses are being borne by the applicant alone. On the other hand, the non-applicant/husband is enjoying his full salary of more than ₹40,000/- per month, along with income from agricultural land and other sources, without discharging any liability towards his wife and son. Hence, the applicant prayed for grant of ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance to be directly deducted from the salary of the non-applicant. However, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, by the impugned order dated 26.02.2021, dismissed the application of the applicant solely on the ground that she is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. This finding is contrary to the material available on record and against the settled principles of law. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the non- 5 applicant subjected the applicant to cruelty, tortured her, and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial house. The applicant, being the legally wedded wife, has sufÏcient and justifiable reasons to live separately. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is unsustainable, bad in the eye of law, and liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, it transpires that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings, documentary evidence and material available on record in their proper perspective. The Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant/wife solely on the ground that she is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, without properly considering the documents exhibited by the applicant, namely, the service book entries, marriage photographs and the affidavit filed by the non- applicant himself, wherein he admitted the marital relationship. 6 The Family Court also overlooked its own earlier order in which it had specifically recorded that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife. It further appears that the Family Court has not framed the issues in accordance with law and has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in a fair and judicious manner. The finding recorded in the impugned order is contrary to the material available on record and suffers from serious infirmities. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No.88/2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court concerned on 27th of October, 2025. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal