1 2025:CGHC:29176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 119 of 2020 Saleem Khan S/o Hasim Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Bhanupratap Colony Kharapara Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Halima Khatoon W/o Salim Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o Laamidaarah, Gram Panchayat Barliya Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Alista Khan D/o Salim Khan Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Halima Khatoon , R/o Laamidaarah, Gram Panchayat Barliya Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and set-aside the order dated 22.11.2019 passed in CRIMINAL MJC No. 74/2018 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh or the Hon'ble Court may lessen the amount of maintenance looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 solemnized their marriage on 30.01.2014 as per Muslim rites and customs. A son, respondent No. 2, was born out of their wedlock. However, with time, disputes arose between the parties, and respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home alleging mental and physical harassment by the applicant and his parents. She further claimed that her in-laws demanded dowry, which her father, due to his limited financial means, was unable to fulfill. Despite her efforts to maintain the relationship, the situation did not improve. Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint with the women’s cell, which registered the matter as a matrimonial dispute under Section 155 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicant, who refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 30.07.2018, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that the applicant had limited income. After recording the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, vide order dated 22.11.2019, directed the applicant to pay 3 ₹7,000/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, is contrary to law and liable to be modified in accordance with the evidence on record. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 herself was unwilling to reside peacefully with the applicant, as she left the matrimonial home without informing anyone. Her allegations of harassment and dowry demands by the applicant and his family are false and baseless, as she neither lodged any formal complaint nor informed her parents about such alleged acts at the relevant time, which clearly reflects her malafide intentions. The learned Court below erred in properly appreciating the evidence, particularly regarding the applicant’s financial condition, as no substantive material was placed on record to establish that the applicant earns sufficient income to pay maintenance to his wife, though he is managing the expenses of his child. Matrimonial disputes and occasional disagreements are common in married life, but such issues do not justify the extreme step taken by the respondent No. 1 to falsely implicate the applicant and his family. A perusal of the pleadings and the testimony of respondent No. 1’s father also makes it evident that the allegations concerning dowry demand and cruelty were made solely to harass the applicant and to secure maintenance. Hence, the impugned order deserves reconsideration and modification. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (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 applicant and respondent No. 1 solemnized their marriage on 30.01.2014 as per Muslim rites and customs, and a son, respondent No. 2, was born out of their wedlock. Over time, disputes arose between the parties, leading respondent No. 1 to leave her matrimonial home, alleging physical and mental harassment as well as dowry demands by the applicant and his parents—claims supported by a complaint made before the women’s cell. Despite multiple efforts, the applicant refused to reconcile or take respondent No. 1 back to the matrimonial home. Left without financial support, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 30.07.2018 seeking maintenance, citing the applicant’s limited income. After careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, rightly exercised its discretion and passed a well-reasoned order dated 22.11.2019, directing the applicant to pay ₹7,000/- per month as maintenance. The order reflects a balanced and legally sound approach, ensuring the right to maintenance of the wife and child under settled principles of law 5 and justice. 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan