Harinarayan S/o Shri Avadhraj Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Pandari Rajtola, Post, PS v. Smt. Santoshi W/o Harinarayan Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Saraigahna, P.S. And
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1207 of 2025 Harinarayan S/o Shri Avadhraj Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Pandari Rajtola, Post, PS And Tehsil- Mada, District- Singroli, (M.P.) (Details As Per Order Annex. P/1) ... Applicant versus Smt. Santoshi W/o Harinarayan Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Saraigahna, P.S. And Tehsil- Baikunthpur, Koriya (C.G.) (Details As Per Order Annex. P/1) ... Respondent For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.26 16:18:20 +0530 26.09.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. 2. Heard Mr. Shivam Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. This Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision application and quash/set-aside the impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Camp Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) [Annexure P/1] 2. Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may 2 deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the revisioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance before the learned Family Court, stating, inter alia that the so-called marriage of the respondent with the applicant was allegedly solemnized on 12.01.2022 as per social customs, and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. The respondent alleged that the applicant (husband) used to abuse and beat her under the influence of alcohol. The respondent further alleged that she gave birth to a child who expired shortly after birth, and that the applicant abandoned her at the hospital. The respondent made false claims regarding the occupation and income of the applicant by stating that he is working as a Rajmistri earning Rs. 30,000–35,000/- per month and that he owns 15–20 acres of agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 5,00,000/- per year. The respondent also pleaded that she has no independent source of income or means of livelihood. Hecen she prayed for the grant of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant (husband), stating that she requires the said amount to meet her day-to-day needs. 4. The applicant in his cross-examination, denied all the averments made by the respondent and submitted, inter alia: that no such marriage ever took place between the applicant/husband and the respondent/wife. The alleged marriage is false, fabricated, and has no legal sanctity. The applicant further submitted that the respondent and her father were previously working under one Ramadhar Jaiswal, resident of Saraigahna, District Koriya (C.G.). After the death of her father, the respondent expressed her desire to marry the applicant and live with him 3 in her village, Saraigahna. However, the applicant never consented to such a marriage. The applicant made it clear to the respondent that he could not marry her as he could not leave his aged parents alone in the village. Thus, the alleged claim of marriage is baseless and concocted. The applicant is an unemployed person. He does not work as a Rajmistri earning Rs. 30,000–35,000/- per month, nor does he own 15–20 acres of land. 5. After hearing both the parties learned Family Court partly allowed the application for maintenance preferred by the respondent and passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 and directed to the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent towards her maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the application for grant of maintenance. The impugned Order dated 28.03.2025, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent herein, is bad in law, perverse, incorrect, inappropriate, contrary to the well-settled principles of law as well as the facts of the case, and thus deserves to be quashed/set aside. He submits that the respondent has falsely alleged that a marriage between herself and the aplicant was solemnized on 12.01.2022. It is submitted that no such marriage ever took place, mere assertions, without any cogent proof, cannot establish a valid marriage in the eyes of law. The essential ceremonies and legal requirements for a valid marriage under the personal/customary law have neither been performed nor proved. In the absence of any documentary or oral evidence, the claim of marriage is wholly untenable. He further submits that the respondent never lived with the applicant, and thus she is not entitled to claim or receive maintenance. The law is well-settled that the 4 party who asserts the existence of a fact bears the burden of proving the same. The respondent has not produced any marriage certificate, photographs, witnesses, or any other documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of marriage. Similarly, no record has been produced to prove the alleged birth and subsequent death of the child. Hence, the respondent’s case is liable to be dismissed for want of proof. He also submits that the allegations that the applicant abused the respondent in filthy language and physically harassed her are vague, baseless, concocted, and have been made only to malign his reputation. In the absence of particulars and corroboration, such bald allegations cannot be relied upon. He submits that the respondent has alleged that the applicant is working as a Rajmistri and earns Rs. 30,000–35,000/- per month. This claim is completely false. The respondent has not produced any documentary evidence, employment record, salary slip, or independent witness to establish such income. He further submits that the respondent herself has admitted in her cross-examination that her mother and brother are not supporting her in the present case. Such an admission substantially weakens her case and clearly demonstrates that the allegations have been made with ulterior motives. In view of the above submissions, it is evident that the respondent has utterly failed to establish the existence of a valid marriage, or any of the subsequent allegations relating to cruelty, income, or childbirth. Accordingly, no cause of action arises in favour of the respondent and against the applicant. The impugned petition is therefore liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by