1 2025:CGHC:43371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 650 of 2019 Sheikh Ibrahim Siddiqui S/o Abdul Shamad Aged About 50 Years Cast Musalman R/o Village Bilaigar, At Present R/o Village Chandrapur, Mandipara, Colony, Police Station Chandrakar, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Akimun Nisha @ Nasima Noori And Another W/o Sheikh Ibrahim Siddiqui, Aged About 45 Years D/o Wajid Khan, Caste Musalman Pathan, R/o Police Station Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, Presently R/o Village Khairtal, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Samima Noori, D/o Sheikh Ibrahim Siddiqui Aged About 16 Years Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Akimun Nisha @ Nasima Noori, Caste Musalman Pathan, R/o Police Station Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhara, Presently R/o Village Khairtal, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call the record and allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018 by the learned Judge Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) or pass appropriate order looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 02.05.2002 according to Muslim rites, and out of the wedlock respondent No.2 was born, who resides with respondent No.1. The case of respondent No.1 is that in the year 2005, when she became ill, the applicant neglected to provide treatment and abandoned her, despite her efforts for reconciliation through Parivar Paramarsh Kendra and issuance of legal notice, the applicant did not cooperate. She further stated that she is not well educated, has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant works as an agent earning about Rs.20,000/- per month and also derives income from agricultural land at village Bilaigarh. On these grounds, she claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant, in reply, denied the allegations, contending that respondent No.1 left his house without sufficient cause, and further submitted that he is only a spare driver earning 3 about Rs.130/- per trip. Upon consideration of pleadings and evidence, the learned Trial Court by order dated 07.03.2019 partly allowed the claim and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 as maintenance, against which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), is bad both on facts and in law. The learned Family Court has erred in holding that the respondents had sufficient reason to reside separately, whereas the evidence on record clearly shows that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without any cogent or sufficient cause. The defence taken by the applicant that the separation was without justification has not been properly appreciated, and the Court has proceeded only on the unsubstantiated version of the respondents. Further, the learned Trial Court has also committed error in assessing the income of the applicant and fixing the quantum of maintenance. The applicant has consistently pleaded that he is working only as a spare driver on daily trips and earns a meagre amount, out of which he has to maintain himself as well as his dependent parents, and therefore, he is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance as directed. In spite of these facts and the absence of reliable evidence from the respondents regarding the actual income of the applicant, the learned Family Court has arbitrarily fixed the maintenance amount, 4 which is excessive, unreasonable, and beyond the means of the applicant. Hence, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and calls for interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Janjgir, after considering the pleadings, evidence and circumstances of the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018, partly allowing the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court took note of the allegations that respondent No.1 was neglected and abandoned by the applicant despite her efforts for reconciliation, that she is not well educated, has no independent means of livelihood, and that she is residing with minor daughter (respondent No.2) who is entirely dependent upon her. While the applicant denied the allegations and attempted to show that he earns only a meagre income as a spare driver, the Family Court, on appreciation of the evidence, rightly held that the respondent-wife and minor daughter are entitled to maintenance for their sustenance and accordingly awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2. The order is well 5 reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law, and fulfils the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution of the wife and child. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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