The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirmed that, where the Family Court has assessed evidence regarding marital status and income, its maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC cannot be interfered with in revision absent manifest illegality or perversity. The judgment upholds existing legal standards and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh for family and matrimonial law practitioners.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1091/2025 of CHANDRA KUMAR Vs SMT. LAXMIN BAI RAJPUT |
| CNR | CGHC010379142025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Family Law / Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC can be challenged in revision solely on grounds of insufficient proof of marriage or applicant’s income, where the Family Court has evaluated the evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the Family Court’s assessment of evidence pertaining to marital status and the applicant’s income is not to be interfered with in revision unless there is a demonstrated illegality or perversity. It found no such infirmity in the Family Court’s findings, having duly considered witness statements and documentary evidence. Thus, the revision challenging maintenance directed under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent claimed to be the applicant’s wife and alleged physical and mental harassment for childlessness, seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The applicant denied marital status and claimed lack of proof of his income. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, awarded maintenance which the applicant contested in revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and family courts outside Chhattisgarh |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Family Court findings on marital status and income, once based on evidence, are not open to interference in revision unless illegality or perversity is established.
- Denial of maintenance cannot be achieved solely by challenging quantum or sufficiency of evidence in revision if Family Court has duly considered all materials.
- Maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC is protected against revision unless clear non-application of mind or procedural impropriety is shown.
- Lawyers should focus on evidentiary issues at trial; grounds for revision are limited to clear errors in law or procedure.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed the Family Court’s order, noting that evidence from both parties had been recorded and assessed before granting maintenance.
- It was contended the respondent failed to prove marriage or income, but the Family Court, having perused available facts and statements, found otherwise and issued the order for maintenance.
- The High Court found neither illegality nor procedural infirmity in the Family Court’s reasoning.
- It thus held no interference was warranted in the revision jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent failed to provide proof of marriage.
- The respondent did not produce any evidence regarding the applicant’s income.
- The Family Court’s order is contrary to the evidence and perverse.
Respondent
- No explicit submissions detailed in the judgment; only respondent’s claim of being wife, alleging harassment, and seeking maintenance as noted by the court.
Factual Background
The respondent woman claimed to be married to the applicant for around 10 years through Hindu rituals. She alleged that the applicant subjected her to physical and mental harassment, particularly due to her childless status, and ultimately left the matrimonial home. She filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, claiming Rs. 15,000 per month. The applicant denied both the marriage and the claim for maintenance. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month, which the applicant challenged in criminal revision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) — The court examined whether statutory requirements for maintenance were met, specifically regarding proof of marriage and inability to maintain herself.
- No discussion of statutory interpretation beyond application to facts; no reading down or expansion indicated.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered or referenced in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established law and evidentiary standards under Section 125 CrPC, reaffirming limited grounds for interference in revision.