1 2025:CGHC:34600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 774 of 2023 Shakina Khan W/o Shri Shafique Khan, Aged About 47 Years R/o Near Goura Choura, Prem Nagar, Mova, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shafique Khan S/o Late Shri Munnu Khan Aged About 58 Years Official Address (Bade Babu), Shishu Vibhag, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital Raipur, Tehsil, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed in Case No. 146/2020 by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:46 +0530 2 Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice and award sufficient amount of maintenance to the applicant.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 14.11.1990 at Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), as per the customs of Muslim rites and rituals. Two sons and a daughter were born out of their wedlock. The respondent/husband has deserted the applicant since 2014 after physically and mentally harassing her. Taking advantage of the applicant’s illiteracy, the respondent cleverly drafted and lured the applicant into signing a Hibanama (gift deed). However, it is a settled principle of law that no document, agreement, or Hibanama can take away the legal and constitutional rights of a wife and her children, including the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, an application for maintenance was filed by the present applicant before the concerned Family Court, Raipur. 4. The applicant filed the application for maintenance and an application for interim maintenance, in which, vide orders dated 29.07.2021 and 22.02.2022, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of the applicant, out of which no amount has been paid by the respondent to the applicant. 5. The respondent stated before the Family Court that the applicant/wife is earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the gifted property. The averments made by the respondent are illusory, as the same have been made without any documentary evidence. 6. After taking the evidence on record and examining the same, the learned Family Court rejected the application for maintenance filed by the present applicant/wife on the ground that the applicant has sufficient source of 3 income through the property given by the respondent vide gift deed (Hibanama). 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law and is therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Principal First Additional Judge, Family Court, ought to have considered that the respondent had asserted that the two sons of the parties are running a business and working at a Samsung Service Centre; however, these assertions were made by the respondent without any evidence on record. In fact, one of the sons of the parties is not mentally fit and is unable to earn, while the other son is working only as an intern at the Samsung Service Centre without any remuneration/salary and receives only a nominal expense of Rs. 100/- on working days. Documents supporting the abovementioned facts have been filed before the learned Family Court and form part of the record. He further submits that the respondent had raised a ground before the Family Court that the applicant had made frivolous complaints against him. However, the complaints made by the applicant are grave in nature, as the respondent is in the habit of misusing the liberty of polygamy under Muslim law. The respondent is continuously marrying women and then abandoning them, leaving them in poor economic and social conditions. The respondent has also committed the offence of Triple Talaq against the present applicant, regarding which a complaint has been made to the concerned police station. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from various medical ailments, for which she has to bear substantial medical expenses. She also has to support the basic needs of her family, wherein one of her sons is not mentally fit and the other is earning only a nominal amount as an intern. Learned Family Court, without appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 has passed the impugned order solely on the apprehension that the applicant is earning enough from the property received through the Hibanama to sustain herself in her old age and to support her two children. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the applicant, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing that the applicant has sufficient source of income through the property given by the respondent vide gift deed (Hibanama). Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 11. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek