1 2025:CGHC:48597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 186 of 2021 Mohammad Shoab Ansari S/o Shri Salim Didar Aged About 30 Years R/o Idgah Road, Farid Nagar, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ishrat Siddiqui W/o Shri Mohammad Shoab Ansari Aged About 21 Years R/o Mother Teresa Nagar, Qu. No. 41/8, Camp- 1, Police Station Chawani, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the Misc. Cr. Case No.1267/2018 (Ishrat Siddiqui Vs Mohd. Shoab Ansari) and after its perusal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 allow this Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2020 passed by the Family Court, Durg, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg seeking maintenance from the applicant/husband, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 09.04.2016 at Bhilai, District Durg, as per their religion and customs. It was alleged that after marriage, the applicant and his family members demanded dowry, including an Activa vehicle, AC, bed, and other household articles, and subjected the respondent to mental and physical harassment. It was further alleged that the applicant deserted the respondent, threatened to divorce her, and is engaged in the business of cloths with a monthly income of about Rs. 50,000/-, having bank deposits and other immovable properties. On these grounds, the respondent prayed for a maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The applicant filed a reply denying all allegations, contending that the respondent is residing at her parental home without any sufficient cause, that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry or harassed her, and that he has always been willing to keep her with him as his wife. He stated that he has a small cloth business in a municipal area shop, which is not permanent, and his aged parents are dependent upon him, making the maintenance amount excessive. It was further submitted that the respondent filed the application only to harass him and without valid grounds. After 3 hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, Durg, by order dated 26.05.2020, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.05.2020 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg is erroneous, perverse, and bad in law. It is contended that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant and his witnesses, which clearly established that the respondent is residing separately without any cogent or sufficient reason and that there is no proof of cruelty or dowry demand by the applicant or his family members. The applicant has always been willing to keep the respondent with him as his wife, yet she has refused to return to the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the applicant is unemployed and merely assists his father in a small cloth shop, which is insufficient to maintain his aged parents and younger sister, who are dependent on him. There is no reliable proof of the applicant’s income, and the documents filed by the respondent, such as bills and bags bearing the shop name, cannot establish his earnings. Despite this, the learned Family Court has assessed an imaginary income and awarded an excessive maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which the applicant is unable to pay. It is further argued that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a wife living separately without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance, a point which has been overlooked by the trial court. 4 Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Durg, after carefully considering the pleadings, oral evidence, and documents placed on record by both parties, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent wife had sufficient grounds to live separately from the applicant/husband. The court duly noted the allegations of dowry demand and mental and physical harassment made by the respondent, as well as the fact that she was deserted and threatened with divorce by the applicant. The Family Court also took into account the financial capacity of the applicant, who is engaged in the cloth business and earning a reasonable income, while observing that the applicant failed to produce any credible evidence to disprove the respondent’s claims or to establish that she was living separately without sufficient cause. After a proper appreciation of evidence and in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court rightly awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent, which is just, reasonable, and necessary for her sustenance. The impugned order dated 26.05.2020 is thus legal, valid, and passed in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan