1 2025:CGHC:29235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 357 of 2022 1 - Firdaus Bano W/o Faruddin Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 05 Nijami Chouk Near Haddi Godown Farid Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Avaish S/o Faruddin Aged About 5 Years Mother On Behalf Of Respondent No.2, R/o Ward No. 05 Nijami Chouk Near Haddi Godown Farid Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Faruddin S/o Kutubuddin Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Farid Nagar Supela Bhilai, Mastan Chouk In From Of Atta Chakki Beside Of Amin Tailor, Beside Of Nijmi Chouk, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anil Tawadkar, learned counsel appearing for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision of the applicants and set-aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the learned second additional principal judge family court Durg. So far as rejection of the maintenance of the application of the applicant no-01 is concerned and allowed the maintenance application of the applicant no-01 and modify the order dated 11.01.2022 and enhance the maintenance amount of the 3000/- rupees per month passed in favour of the applicant no-02, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the the applicant No. 1/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was decided by the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1350/2018. The applicant No. 1 was married to the non-applicant on 29.11.2015, according to Muslim customs at Baidyanath Para, Madarsa Masjid, Raipur. After the marriage, the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant lived together as husband and wife. However, within 20 days of the marriage, the non-applicant and his family started creating disputes and began demanding dowry, alleging that insufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, the father of applicant No. 1 had given several household items as dowry, including a double bed, sofa, washing machine, Godrej almirah, LED TV, gas stove with cylinder, gold articles, a Hero Honda motorcycle, and cash. Despite this, the Non-applicant and his family continued to demand additional 3 cash from her father. The demands for dowry continued, and after the fulfillment of some of these demands, the non-applicant returned to take the applicant No. 1 back. However, he again demanded money and subsequently ousted the applicant No. 1. After the birth of applicant No. 2, and within six months of the marriage, the non- applicant stopped visiting or taking any responsibility for applicant No. 1. The father of applicant No. 1 arranged a social meeting (samjhauta baithak), after which the non-applicant agreed to take back the applicants No. 1 and 2. However, the non-applicant began disputing the paternity of the child, alleging that applicant No. 2 was not his biological child, and again created conflict, in this regard, the father of applicant No. 1 lodged an FIR on 25.10.2018 at Mahila Thana, Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg. After counseling at the police station, the non-applicant initially agreed to live with applicant No. 1 but later denied doing so and stopped providing any maintenance or proper care. Currently, applicant No. 1 and her child are entirely dependent on her father, as she has no independent source of income. It is further alleged that the non-applicant is employed as a heavy vehicle driver in Saudi Arabia (Qatar) and earns a monthly salary of approximately ₹1,60,000/-. Therefore, applicant No. 1, in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., prayed before the trial Court for an award of ₹20,000/- per month for herself and ₹20,000/- per month for applicant No. 2, totaling ₹40,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. 4. The Non-applicant filed his reply before the trial Court concerned, wherein he denied the allegations but admitted certain facts. He 4 submitted that he had made multiple efforts to reunite with the applicant No. 1 and live together as husband and wife, but she was not willing. He further alleged that the applicant’s No.1 family had assaulted him and a related criminal case is pending before the Court of JMFC, Durg. 5. After framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 11.01.2022, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 and partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2, granting a maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record passed the order. He further submits that the applicant No. 01 has proved her case and due to sufficient reason, she not live with the non-applicant and she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. The applicant No. 1 appear before the Mahila Thana Bhilai and filed a complaint on 25.11.2018 and again informed on 10.12.2018 and alleged the non-applicant after counseling the police authority advised for filed the case before the Court. The learned Family Court not considered that the applicant No. 1 started harassment and demanded dowry after the 20 days of marriage dated 05.12.2016 and misbehave, it appears in the counseling the non-applicant committed marpeet harassment and not ready for compromise, the applicant No. 1 is ready to live with the non-applicant but the non- applicant not properly maintained, thereafter, the applicant No. 1 filed 5 an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance. The learned family court to adopt the arbitrary manner, dismissed the application of the applicant No-01 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. He further submits that the maintenance amount granted in favour of applicant No. 2 is lower side, looking to the expenses of the applicant No. 2 and any other relevant grounds may be raised at the time of motion and final hearing. He also submits that the applicant No.1 is legally valid wife of the non-applicant (Husband) not properly care and not maintain the applicant No.1 and 2 as per provision of section 125 of CrP.C. and the applicant No-01 right for getting the maintenance amount from the non-applicant. The Non- applicant not rise reason for not granting maintenance his duty to maintain applicant No-01 and no-02 as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court directed to Husband pay the maintenance amount as per living status of the husband. So the trial Court committing error that the applicant No-01 is not entitled for the maintenance amount from the non-applicant and very low amount rupees 3000/- awarded in favour of the respondent no-02 which is illegal and against the material available in the record. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (the son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected 6 on the ground that she is living separately from the non-applicant without any just and sufficient reason. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non- applicant. It appears that the learned trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal