Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 693 of 2025 Gyandas Ratre S/o Shri Munnalal Ratre Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No.-9, Tikapara, Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, Post and Tahsil - Nawagarh, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.), (Correct Address of The Petitioner is As Mentioned Above) ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Shashi Ratre Aged About 52 Years (The Petitioner Gyandas Ratre Is Shown As Husband of The Respondent Whereas The Petitioner Gyandas Ratre Is Not Her Husband), R/o Nawagarh, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.), Present Address - Nayaganj Ward Bhathapara, Police Station - Bhathapara,District - Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.), (Applicant) ... Respondent PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:07:52 +0530 For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.170/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed 2 the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the respondent/wife and directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 28.06.2023, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 170/2023. The case of the respondent is that approximately 26 years ago, she became acquainted with the applicant who, after the demise of his first wife, married her and took her to Nawagarh, where they began living as husband and wife. She claims that she is recognized as his wife in the locality and that the applicant is recorded as her husband in her Aadhaar Card No. 506984427399 (prepared by the applicant in Ward No. 9, Nawagarh) as well as in her Ration Card issued at her maternal home in Bhathapara. The respondent further states that she has no children from this marriage due to sterilization and that, on 02.12.2021, the petitioner executed a promissory deed in her favour in Bhathapara, promising to transfer one acre of land to her. A month prior to filing the application, the petitioner allegedly brought home a second wife, Sahebin (resident of Lakda, Pathariya, District Mungeli), and began quarrelling with the respondent, making it impossible for her to continue living with him. The respondent asserts she has no independent income or means to maintain herself, while the petitioner owns 15–16 acres of agricultural land and four houses in Nawagarh, from which he earns approximately @10,000 per month in rent, @50,000–@60,000 from agriculture, and @25,000 from renting out his car and tractor. On this basis, she claimed @25,000 per month as maintenance. 3. The applicant filed a reply opposing the application. He submitted that the 3 respondent was previously married to Kamal Gehare of Patpar Bhathapara but left him after a few years to return to her maternal home. Thereafter, she allegedly lived with multiple men under the Chudi Pratha custom—namely Dayadin Diwakar of Nagpura, Kamal Patre of Devgadiya, and Kishan Das Rai of Sirve—each for a few years, and each time returned home allegedly after stealing valuables. The applicant further alleged that the respondent was in an illicit relationship with Parmeshwar @ Raju Sinha of Nawagarh, with whom she lived for 7–8 years before ousting him. He claims she came into contact with him only due to a land dispute with her sister-in-law, which was resolved with the help of Ramlochan Sonwani (his maternal uncle-in-law), and that no marital relationship ever existed between them. 4. He also contended that the respondent’s Ration Card lists Monika Ratre as her daughter, and her name appears as the informant in the birth register of Nagar Palika Bhathapara, where the parents are recorded as Sewak Ram Baghel and Chandrika Baghel. Moreover, she was allegedly arrested in 2011 by Bhathapara Police in Istagasa No. 116, 331/2011 under Sections 151, 107, and 116(3) CrPC and sent to Mahila Kendriya Jail, Raipur, before being released on bail on 15.11.2011. He claimed that she filed the application only to extort money using her acquaintance with him. Despite these submissions, by order dated 22.03.2025, the Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhathapara (C.G.), partly allowed the respondent’s application in Misc. Criminal Case No. 170/2023. The court directed the petitioner to pay @4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of the application, i.e., 28.06.2023. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 has been passed without considering the 4 materials available on record. There is no relation between the applicant and the respondent. The respondent has failed to prove that the applicant is the husband of the respondent. It is here respectfully submitted that in so far as the alleged marriage of the respondent with the applicant is concerned, the respondent, in paragraph 01 of her examination-in-chief, has made statement to the effect that 26 years beforehand, her marriage took place with the applicant and at that time the legally married wife of the petitioner had died and furthermore in paragraph 14 of cross- examination, the respondent has made statement to the effect that Binda Bai is the first wife of the applicant and 05 years after death of Binda Bai, she was taken as wife by the applicant. If the statements made by the respondent in paragraph 01 and 14 of her court statement are examined, these all appear to be false in light of the fact that Binda Bai (the first wife of the applicant) has died on 11.02.2022. The respondent has failed to prove that she was residing as wife with the applicant. Even otherwise the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent is excessive in nature. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after all hearing all the statement of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality or infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti