1 2025:CGHC:48951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1182 of 2025 Azharuddin S/o Hafizuddin Aged About 27 Years R/o Gautam Nagar, Ward No. 01, Sector 11, Khursipar Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Details As Per Order Annex. P/1) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Musrat Jahaan W/o Azharddin Aged About 27 Years R/o Housing Board, Kailash Nagar Jamul, Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Details As Per Order Annex. P/1) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. No.1222/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after the marriage, the respondent’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, and the applicant (husband) compelled her to perform all household chores, withheld food from her, and repeatedly demanded money. They refused to provide her with medical treatment, refused to eat the food she cooked, and subjected her to verbal abuse and physical assault over trivial matters. At the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents, according to their means, had given gold and silver ornaments and other essential household articles such as a double-bed cot, an almirah, a motorcycle, and a sofa set—as gifts. The in-laws derided these articles as useless and taunted her, saying that if Rs.5,00,000/- had been given instead, it would have been more useful. Despite repeated demands by the respondent, the applicant and his family did not return the said articles. The applicant frequently beat the applicant and twisted her arm. On one occasion, the applicant and his family members forced the applicant to drink Dettol; when she cried and pleaded to be taken to a doctor, they left her writhing without medical aid. 3. The application further states that the respondent stayed in her matrimonial home for about one month during which the non- applicant and his relatives subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law even attempted to cut her wrist veins. Whenever the applicant asked to speak with her father, the applicant and his family prevented her from making phone calls. When no money could be arranged, the 3 applicant stopped speaking to the applicant. On 05.01.2022 at night, the applicant telephoned the respondent, demanding money and asking her to return to the matrimonial home. When the respondent stated that she could not arrange the money but was willing to return herself, the applicant, in anger, pronounced “talaq” (divorce) that very night. After pronouncing talaq on 05.01.2022, the applicant neither took the respondent back within the three-month iddat period nor revoked the pronouncement, whereby, under Muslim Shariat law, the marriage stood dissolved automatically and the respondent ceased to be the wife of the applicant. Consequently, the respondent cannot return to that house. The application also avers that the respondent has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is employed as an operator at Jindal Factory, Raipur, earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. To meet her daily needs and to maintain a standard of living commensurate with the respondent’s financial status, the respondent prays for an order directing the applicant to pay her Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations as alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the First Additional Principal 4 Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), granting Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, is perverse, contrary to law and facts, and liable to be set-aside. The respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home within a month of marriage, without any justification and in the absence of the applicant, taking all gold and silver ornaments and gifts with her, and has since refused to return despite repeated reconciliation efforts by the applicant, his family, the Women Police Station (counselling on 22.03.2022), and the local Muslim Committee meeting held on 07.01.2022. The applicant is presently unemployed, suffering from depression and severe heart ailments, and dependent on his brother and father for sustenance, having left his last job in October 2023, while the respondent is well-educated (B.Com, M.Com) and earns Rs.15,000–20,000/- per month through tuitions and stitching work. The respondent has made false and baseless allegations, is influenced by her father, and has even threatened to implicate the applicant and his family in false cases. Given her refusal to live with the applicant without sufficient cause, her independent earning capacity, and the petitioner’s financial incapacity, she is not entitled to any maintenance and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing the entire evidence and record, the Court concluded that the respondent-wife was subjected to cruelty and was validly divorced by a single talaq on 05.01.2022, which was not revoked and became final after the iddat period. Her separate residence is therefore justified, making her entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The applicant-husband, though claiming unemployment, is qualified and capable of earning about Rs.15,000–20,000/- per month and has no other dependents. Accordingly, the Family Court concluded that the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil