1 2025:CGHC:28203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1170 of 2019 Israfil Khan S/o Marhum Noorkhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Boriya Khurd Building Second Floor, Quarter No. 218, P.S. Tikrapara, Tahsii And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Office Address Patra India V.P.O. Service Private Company Fafadih Chowk, Bilaspur Road Raipur, Tahisl And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Shahina Parveen W/o Israfil Khan Aged About 33 Years R/o Idgah Bhatha, P.S. Ajad Chowk Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Huriya Fatima S/o Shri Israfil Khan Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Shahina Parveen R/o Idgah Bhatha, P.S. Ajad Chowk Raipur, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No. 755/2017 (Parties being Smt. Shahina Parveen and another Vs. Israfil Khan) or direction may be granted to reduce the maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1, the legally wedded wife of the applicant (married on 10.03.2015), and Respondent No.2, their minor daughter, sought maintenance on grounds of neglect and cruelty. It was alleged that shortly after marriage, the applicant began pressuring Respondent No.1 to earn money, and despite initial cohabitation in a rented house, the applicant eventually refused to live with the respondents and subjected them to mental harassment, forcing them to live separately. The applicant, stated to be earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from private employment and Rs. 50,000/- annually from agricultural land, allegedly failed to provide any financial support. In response, the applicant denied all allegations, citing his unstable income, past illness, and financial responsibility towards his dependent mother and disabled brother. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to Respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to Respondent No.2. The applicant has challenged the order on the ground that it was passed without proper appreciation of evidence regarding his actual income and financial condition. Hence this revision petition. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1, without sufficient cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 is an educated woman, gainfully employed in a school, and capable of maintaining herself and her child. The applicant, on the other hand, is a low-paid private employee, visually impaired, and financially burdened with the responsibility of supporting his ailing mother and permanently disabled brother. The Family Court overlooked these crucial aspects and passed the impugned order in the applicant’s absence, without properly assessing his actual income or financial capacity. The awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month is excessive and not supported by any proof of the applicant’s earnings. Hence, the impugned order is unjust and liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 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, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court appears to be just, fair, and based on due consideration of the pleadings and evidence presented by both parties. Respondent No.1, being the legally wedded wife, and Respondent No.2, the minor child, are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as the applicant failed to provide adequate financial support despite having a stable income from private employment and agricultural land. The applicant’s general denial of allegations and claim of financial burden due to dependent family members does not absolve him of his legal and moral duty to maintain his wife and minor child. The quantum of Rs. 6,000/- per month (Rs. 4,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter) is reasonable and balanced, keeping in view the applicant’s stated income and the basic needs of the respondents. 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan