1. By way of the instant criminal revision, the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 235/2007.

2. Facts leading to the instant criminal revision, in brief, are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with an application under Section 26 r/w Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month or a lump sum of Rs.7,00,000 as full and final settlement from the non-applicant.

3. The case of the applicant before the Court below was that initially the applicant had married to one Ramkripal and after mutual separation (Chor-Chhutti) from her husband Ramkripal as per the customary practice prevailed in the society, she got married to the non-applicant by adopting the system of Churi marriage. Further case of the applicant was that since 2007 the non-applicant started harassing and ill treating her on various occasions and even tried to kill her which forced her to leave the house of non-applicant. On account of continuous torture and harassment given by the non-applicant, the applicant was left with no other option but to leave the house of non-applicant and therefore she started residing separately at Chingrajpara Bilaspur. The applicant being an illiterate and unemployed lady and unable to sustain herself filed the said applications seeking maintenance from the non-applicant who is earning at least Rs.15,000 per month.

4. Upon notice, the non-applicant appeared before the Court below and filed detailed reply denying the allegation put forth by the applicant for maintenance. In his reply the non-applicant has denied any sort of marriage with the applicant and has stated that there was no relationship between him and the applicant. He has further stated that the said application has been filed only to harass him, therefore, the application claiming for maintenance should be rejected.

5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences that have come on record, the Court below vide its order dated 10.03.2011 refused to allow the prayer made by the applicant for grant of maintenance.

6. It is this order dated 10.03.2011 which is under challenge in the instant Criminal Revision.

7. Counsel for the applicant submits that from the evidence on record particularly the statement of Rajni Shukla (PW-2) it has been established that there was a customary marriage between applicant and non-applicant and that both had been staying as husband and wife for the last about 15 years in the same locality where PW-2 was residing. Counsel for the applicant further submits that even if for the argument sake we reach to a conclusion that the marriage between applicant and non-applicant could not be established, since the applicant and the non-applicant had been living together for last 15 years, it should be presumed that they are husband and wife and therefore the applicant is entitled for getting maintenance from the non-applicant.

8. Per contra, counsel for the non-applicant submits that the applicant has failed before the Court below to establish the marriage which was performed between applicant and non-applicant. He submits that the admitted position in the instant case is that the applicant had already 'married to one Ramkdpal and she has failed to give any sort of proof in respect of the divorce that took place between the applicant and her husband Ramkripal. In absence of any such proof about her separation from her husband Ramkripal, there could not have been any marriage between applicant and non-applicant. He further submits that on perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it is evidently clear that the Court below has taken into consideration the invitation card in respect of the marriage of the applicant's daughter namely Rameshwari @ Manju which was to be solemnized on 25.02.2007. In the said marriage invitati