1 2025:CGHC:25077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1088 of 2018 Sarfaraj Rizvi S/o Rafik Rizvi Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Motor Mechnic, R/o Opp. Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi, Police Station- Parpodi, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Sehra Nisha Khan W/o Sarfaraj Rizvi Aged About 29 Years R/o Opp. Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, Police Station- Parpodi, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Nawab Mohalla, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant preferred an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the applicant for grant of maintenance and claimed that the non-applicant is legally married wife of the applicant. It is further stated that the non applicant was subjected to cruelty by the applicant but she was bearing the torture and harassment by the applicant with a hope of peaceful life in future. The husband and in-laws committed settling to cause death for demand of dowry and the non applicant lodged a criminal case against them which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 48/2017 under Sections 498A, 506 and 323/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The non-applicant in her application has stated that she is facing financial difficulties for livelihood. It is further stated by the non applicant that the present applicant is motor mechanic and also earns money from agriculture. It is stated that the applicant earns Rs.2,40,000/- from mechanical work and Rs. 1 lakh from 3 agriculture and further stated that the non applicant is unable to maintain herself and prays for monthly maintenance of Rs.8000/-. 5. The applicant having being served notice by the learned Family Court, appeared and filed reply before learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) on 30.12.2017. The applicant has denied all the allegations made by the non applicant. It was denied by the applicant that he is working as motor mechanic and also earns Rs. 2,40,000/- from mechanical work and Rs. 1 lakh from agriculture work. The applicant further stated in his reply that the non applicant is living separately without any sufficient reason and he is agreed to lead a happily married life with her but she does not want to live with him as a ideal couple. The applicant further stated in his return that the non applicant / wife used to talk with one Aslam and when the applicant asked for telephonic conversation with another person, then she replied that he was having affair with him before marriage and till date it is continued and also advised him to not interfere in her relationship. It is also stated that the non applicant threatened him to send the entire family behind the bar if she was advised to discontinue the affair. It was further stated that the present applicant preferred an application before the Woman Cell, District Kabirdham, where Aslam was called and non applicant stated that she wants to live with Aslam. Thus it is clear that the non applicant is residing in her parental house without any sufficient reason. It was further stated by the applicant that the 4 non applicant is a trained tailor and shed used to earn Rs. 40,000/- per month, therefore, she is not unable to maintain herself and not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant. It is finally stated by the present applicant that neither the non applicant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 8,000/-per month nor he is capable to give her such a huge amount. 6. Learned Family Court below sent the parties for compromise before the Advisor, Family Court, Kawardha, where, the mediation fails and thereafter learned Family Court framed as many as 4 issues to decide the matter. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2018, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month to the non applicant as an amount of maintenance and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Hence this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Kawardha is bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent/non-applicant is residing separately without any sufficient reason as she has already accepted his affair with one Aslam before the police authorities. He further submits that the non-applicant was residing with the present applicant and now residing separately with her own will 5 and without any sufficient reason and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. Learned Family Court should also have considered that the non-applicant who working woman and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month by working as a lady tailor, is not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant who is not related to her and she has wrongly stated that she was subjected to cruelty and therefore, residing separately, whereas, she herself has accepted his affair with one Aslam before the Woman Cell Office, District Kabirdham, therefore, the order dated 20.07.2018 is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is suffers with material irregularity and contrary to the facts available on the record and the same is liable to be set-aside. He also submits that means of maintenance could not be properly adjudicated by learned Family Court and the applicant is under obligation against the intention of the provision for maintenance, which needs quashing of the impugned order. He contended that learned Family Court erred in holding that the present applicant will pay a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month ignoring the fact that the non applicant has affair with one Aslam and she is living in her parental house without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.1800/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.1800/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal