IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4802 of 2022 SMT. SWATI AND OTHERS Versus VISHAL Appearance:

Shri Amar Singh Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mohd. Sharif Patel, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

(Heard on: 18.11.2025)

(Delivered on: 16.12.2025)

ORDER This criminal revision under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 14.09.2022 in MJCR No.927/2017 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore (M.P.) whereby claim of revision petitioner no.1 has been dismissed and claim of maintenance for revision petitioner no.2 has been allowed to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month only.

2. Facts in brief are that an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 was preferred on 04.09.2017 asserting that revision petitioner no.1 was married to respondent on 18.06.2016 at village Bhainsa, District- Indore as per hindu customary rituals. A child (revision petitioner no.2) was born from the wedlock. She was subjected to harassment and she ousted from the matrimonial home on 22.05.2017. No maintenance was provided. They are unable to maintain themselves whereas respondent/husband earns Rs.30,000/- as salary by working as a gym trainer and he earns Rs.50,000/- from the business of protein products and he also earns from agricultural operations. His total earning is Rs.80,000/- per month. After ousting from the family she gave birth to a girl child on 17.09.2017 and the operation expenses of Rs.21,000/- was borne by the maternal side. They requires Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. The application was replied and opposed on the ground that revision petitioner no.1 was not married with respondent/husband. She was married to Rajkumar resident of Bijalpur, Police Station- Rajendra Nagar, District Indore (M.P.). Due to the conduct of revision petitioner no.1 her husband Rajkumar ended relationship with revision petitioner no.1 and started making close to the respondent on cellphone. They develop intimacy and revision petitioner no.1 insisted to live with the respondent and maintained relationship of husband and wife without formal decree of divorce by husband Rajkumar. She lodged a false report at Mahila Thana, Indore on 06.07.2017 and a case under section 498-A of the IPC was registered against the respondent and his family members. Revision petitioner no.1 also filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She leveled false allegations against him. Respondent did not earn as stated by the revision petitioner no.1. He joins the gym as a member of the gym. He earned his livelihood by working as agricultural labour. Petitioner no.1 is the owner of property worth Rs.50 lacs. She earns Rs.20,000/- per month from tuition.

4. Family Court recorded the testimony of petitioner no.1 as PW-1 and admitted the documents Exhibit-P/1 to P/28. Respondent examined himself as DW-1 and adduced the documents as Exhibit-D/1 to D/17. Appreciating the evidence the family court recorded the finding that revision petitioner no.1 is not legally wedded wife of the respondent. Family Court also supplied the reasons that previous husband of the revision petitioner no.1 is alive and the marriage has not been dissolved between the revision petitioner no.1 and Rajkumar and rejected the claim of maintenance of revision petitioner no.1. Trial court further recorded the finding that revision petitioner no.2 is the son born from the relationship between respondent and revision petitioner no.1 and respondent is a person of sufficient means and awarded the amount of maintenance to revision petitioner no.2 as per para-1 of the judgment.

5. Challenging the dismissal of claim of revision petitioner no.1 and amount of maintenance awarded to the revision petitioner no.2 this criminal revision is preferred.

6. Heard.

7. Counsel for the respondent opposed the cri