1 2025:CGHC:6273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 117 of 2023 Mohd. Mujbil Khan @ Majbal Khan S/o Minhajul Khan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Barejpara Ambikapur, Post Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Tanuja W/o Mod Mujbil Khan Aged About 37 Years D/o Abdul Kalim, R/o Ward No. 09, Mitvanagar Korea Collary Post Korea Collery, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/02/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.78/2021, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 06.04.2015, marriage between the parties was solemnized as per muslim customs and rituals at Korea (C.G.). After marriage, husband and wife resided in the matrimonial house at Bridgepara, Ambikapur (CG). It is alleged that after few months of marriage, the non application was ill treated for demand of dowry by applicant and other in-laws and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from non applicant. Further, the non applicant was thrown out of the house after which she had become helpless and having no income to survive, therefore, application for maintenance was filed before the Family Court in which it was claimed that the applicant has a “Tire Retreating Shop” in the town Ambikapur and earns about Rs.70,000- 80,000/- per month, therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- be awarded as maintenance to the non-applicant. 3. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application. The learned Family Court passed the order dated 29.10.2022, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent/wife and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the family court below is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contented that After few day of marriage, the respondent/applicant on own motion left the house of the 3 applicant, therefore he is not able to get the benefit of interim maintenance under the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is not an owner of the tyre retreating business, but mere an worker as an employee and earning only Rs.10,000/- per month and the respondent/wife is well educated and there is no requirement for the maintenance for sustaining normal life, hence, the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside. It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Family Court and pass suitable order in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 7. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicant/respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is 4 husband of the respondent has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed that the non-applicant/wife has not mentioned any source of her income in the affidavit submitted regarding income, while the applicant/husband has not given any details of income in the affidavit submitted regarding income, which shows that he wants to hide his income and it also appears that he has a tyre resoling shop. In cross-examination paragraph-04, the applicant has accepted that he does the business of tyre resoling, although the applicant has denied that he earns Rs.1-1.5 lakh per month from that tyre resoling business, but the applicant doing the business of tyre resoling shows that he is a person with capable means. The respondent/non applicant is the married wife of the applicant. There is sufficient reason for the non-applicant to live separately from the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for maintaining his wife. 9. From perusal of the above findings, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent has been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court 5 has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.78/2021 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant