1 2025:CGHC:41290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 883 of 2024 Mohd. Mubarak Ansari S/o Nasiruddin Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ajirama, Post Radhavpuri, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Jamirun Nisha W/o Mohd. Mubarak Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ajirama, Post Radhavpuri, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Presently Address- Village Satpata Post, P.S. And Tahsil Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Mahin Parveen D/o Mohd. Mubarak Aged About 16 Years (By Rejection Order Dated 06-07-2024) Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Jamirun Nisha, R/o Village Ajirama, Post Radhavpuri, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Presently Address- Village Satpata Post, P.S. And Tahsil Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Aafrin Parvin D/o Mohd. Mubarak Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Jamirun Nisha, R/o Village Ajirama, Post Radhavpuri, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Presently Address- Village Satpata Post, P.S. And Tahsil Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Jeya Akhtar D/o Mohd. Mubarak Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Jamirun Nisha, R/o Village Ajirama, Post Radhavpuri, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Presently Address- Village Satpata Post, P.S. And Tahsil Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:48:48 +0530 2 For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate.. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 91/2021 in respect of case of the respondent no. 1 or impugned whole granting maintenance amount may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for each respondent from the applicant. On 22.06.2003, the applicant solemnized his marriage with respondent No. 1 according to Muslim customs. Since then, respondent No. 1 was residing with the applicant as his wife at her matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock, four children were born, one of whom (a daughter) is now married. The 3 remaining children have been made parties as respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4, as mentioned above. As per the allegations made by respondent No. 1, after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members began harassing and torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry and also made unlawful demands for additional dowry. It is further alleged that the applicant neglected to take proper care of the respondents, which compelled respondent No. 1 to leave her matrimonial home and reside with respondents No. 2 and 3 at her parental house. The respondent No. 1 has no source of income for her survival. It is alleged that the applicant is running a restaurant/hotel business, has given his vehicle on rent, earns approximately Rs. 60,000/- per month from these activities, and also owns agricultural land. Hence, the respondents filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a total maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- for each respondent). 4. After issuance of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application. He stated that respondent No. 1 quarreled with him without any reason and left her matrimonial home of her own accord, and that she is capable of maintaining herself. 5. Learned Family Court, after examining the witnesses, recording the evidence, and framing the issues, allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 12,500/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- each for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Rs. 2,500/- for respondent No. 4). 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is completely illegal, arbitrary, and 4 contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never acted improperly towards the respondent and has always made efforts to maintain his matrimonial life. However, respondent No. 1 has refused to live with the applicant; hence, the maintenance order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is capable of maintaining herself, but the learned Family Court failed to consider this fact and passed the impugned maintenance order against the applicant, which is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. The respondent No. 1 has repeatedly threatened to obtain a decree of divorce and has expressed her unwillingness to live with the applicant. She has also made several false complaints before various competent authorities against the applicant. He further submits that the conduct of respondent No. 1 towards the applicant and his family members has been improper, as she has been pressurizing the applicant to reside at her parental house without any valid reason and has used abusive language against the applicant without cause. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 has made no effort to return to her matrimonial home, which clearly indicates her intention to permanently stay away from it. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider that there is no material on record to show that the applicant committed any cruelty towards respondent No. 1. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are baseless, perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek