1 2025:CGHC:28199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 626 of 2024 Nafees Bilal Qureshi S/o Hafeez Mohammad Aged About 33 Years R/o Q. No.- G.V. 94, Geetanjali Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Afreen W/o Nafees Bilal Qureshi Aged About 27 Years R/o- Street No.- 29, Quarter No.- 2a, Sector- 5, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Mohammad Shahzain S/o Nafees Bilal Qureshi R/o - Street No- 29, Quarter No. - 2a, Sector-5, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 728/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant No.01/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant and non-applicant No. 01 were married in November, 2020. As a result of their married life, Non- Applicant No. 02/Mohammad Shahzain was born on 12/12/2021. On 16/08/2021 an application for restoration of marital life against non- applicant No. 1 was filled by the applicant under Rule 125 Muslim Law Order 21 Rule 32 in which the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) passed a unilateral decision and decree against the applicant. The non-applicant has filled a complaint under Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the applicant and his family member in Mahila, Police Station Sector-6, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.). The non-applicant/wife filed the said application before the Family Court and contended that 7 days before marriage, the applicant and his parents asked non-applicant/wife's father that what he was giving to his daughter, then the non-applicant/wife father said that he will give Rs. 2 lakh and after purchasing the furniture etc. He will deposit the money left in the non- applicant account. Then the applicant father asked to give Rs. 10 lakh to his daughter. Three days before the wedding, it was discussed that instead of giving cash, they should give all the household items. The non- applicant/wife filed the said application before the Family Court and contended that on 03.11.2020 non-applicant/wife was not allowed to meet her parents. The non-applicant/wife filed the said application before the Family Court and contended that on 16/11/2020 the applicant and non-applicant went to Orissa where there was no necessary item, they had to sleep on the floor in the cold and had to get up at 4 am in the morning, for cooking food on the heater, non-applicant got electrocuted 3 3-4 times. It has been contended that within a month of the marriage, the applicant's father misbehaved with the non-applicant and was taunted by the applicant and his family for dowry. The applicant and non-applicant were not allowed to meet, despite the ill health of the non-applicant she went to Bilaspur with the parents of the applicant but she was not shown to the doctor and kept giving medicine after consulting relatives due to which her health got worse. Further, on 13/12/2020 as per the customs, when the parents of the non-applicant came to take her, the parents of the applicant created a lot of ruckus regarding the demand of dowry and somehow non-applicant came to Bhilai, then, on 11/01/2021 the non- applicant along with her brother came to Bilaspur and next day went to Orissa with her mother-in-law and father-in-law where within a few days, misbehavior with the non-applicant started again. Her mother-in-law used to treat her like a maid and her father-in-law used to taunt her on every issue. The mother-in-law used to provoke the applicant due to which there were often arguments and fights between the applicant and non-applicant. The wife further contended in her said application that on 01/02/2021, the non-applicant came to Raipur with her in laws where non-applicant was asked to give all her jewelry's. The parents of the applicant did not allow the non-applicant to meet any relative and interfered in their married life and whenever the non-applicant was alone in the kitchen, her father-in-law would quietly come from behind and touch her hair and eyebrows. Whenever she informed the applicant, he used to ignore it. When non-applicant came to Bhilai for 15 days to attend the marriage then she got the information from the doctor that she was pregnant. On being informed the applicant and his father were not happy. That, the non-applicants have further stated that on 25/07/2021 the applicant along with his parents and other relatives came to take non- 4 applicant to his home even though he knew that non-applicant had to take rest for 6 months during pregnancy, yet applicant insisted on taking her and he also argued and abused the mother and brother of the non- applicant and then he went away from there. On 12/12/2021 the non- applicant got the birth of the son. On the evening of 13/12/2021 the applicant, his parents and maternal uncle came but no conversation was made about taking the non-applicant with them. Further contention is that the non-applicant No. 01 for the sake of non-applicant No. 2 had never made any kind of complaint during their marital period in order to preserve their marital relationship and the social prestige of their family, yet the applicant without any proper reason from dated 25/07/2021 has been abandoned the non-applicant. Learned Family Court has framed 03 issues which have been answered in favour of the non-applicant No. 02. and the Family Court has awarded Rs. 5000/- per month to non-applicant No.2 by partly allowing the said application of non-applicants. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that even otherwise the applicant is an unemployed person who is completely dependent upon earnings of his parents. Since the applicant is not earning anything, the grant of maintenance to applicant No. 02 is bad in law. The applicant is not earning sufficient income to maintain himself which is clear from the records of the Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the 5 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 728/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondents, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar