1 2025:CGHC:44311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1079 of 2025 Taufik Ahmad S/o Shri Mufid Ahmad Aged About 33 Years R/o Bus Stand Near Water Tank, Taufik Electornic Village Karabel, P.S. Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Firdos Parveen W/o Taufik Ahmad Aged About 27 Years R/o Bus Stand Near Water Tank, Taufik Electornic Village Karabel, P.S. Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Lambitoli Tahsil Kunkuri District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Kavis Raza (Minor) S/o Taufik Ahmad Aged About 07 Months Through Natural Guardian Mother Firdos Parveen At Present R/o Village Lambitoli Tahsil Kunkuri District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Afroj Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and quashed the order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 28.05.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the present applicant and respondent no.1 are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 04.07.2023 at Kunkuri according to Muslim rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock respondent no.2, their minor son, was born. Respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS before the Learned Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and the child, contending that she has been subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant and his family members, that she was assaulted and driven out of her matrimonial home, and that she has no independent source of income and is presently residing with her widowed mother. She further alleged that the applicant is financially well-off, running an electronic business at Karabel and Baghicha, owning a luxury house and car, and earning around Rs. 50,000/- per month, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The applicant, while admitting the marriage and the birth of the son, denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand and asserted that respondent no.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason, behaved disrespectfully with him and his family members, and lodged false complaints against them. He further stated that he is only an electronic mechanic with the responsibility of maintaining his parents and two unmarried sisters, and is nevertheless willing to keep respondent no.1 and their son with him and maintain them properly. After hearing both parties and appreciating the material on record, the Learned Family Court, by order dated 28.05.2025, partly allowed 3 the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.2, totalling Rs. 6,000/-, from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Family Court suffers from material irregularities and is not just and proper in awarding maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- each to respondent nos.1 and 2. The Learned Court failed to appreciate that respondent no.1/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient or justified reason, and therefore she is not legally entitled to claim maintenance. The Court has further overlooked the fact that the applicant has always been ready and willing to keep respondent no.1 with him as per his status and capacity, and to properly maintain both her and their minor son, thereby demonstrating his bona fide intention to lead a happy matrimonial life. Moreover, the Learned Family Court failed to consider the financial and social responsibilities of the applicant, who is merely an electronic mechanic, the only son of his parents, bearing the burden of supporting his aged mother, who is suffering from arthritis, and two unmarried sisters. In view of these circumstances, the maintenance awarded by the Learned Court is excessive, unsustainable, and contrary to settled principles of law, warranting interference by this Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Learned Family Court, after duly appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.2, totalling Rs. 6,000/- from the date of filing of the application. The Court has correctly held that respondent no.1, being the legally wedded wife, and respondent no.2, being the minor child born out of the wedlock, are entitled to claim maintenance, particularly when it has been established that they have no independent source of income and are dependent on the applicant for their sustenance. The Family Court has also rightly taken into account the financial capacity of the applicant and awarded a reasonable and just amount of maintenance, balancing the needs of the wife and child with the earning capacity and obligations of the applicant. The order of the Learned Family Court is, therefore, well-reasoned, just, and in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission 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. 5 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan