1 2025:CGHC:32649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1402 of 2019 Azhar Iqbal Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o 2383 Shastri Ward, Shafibad, Anand Nagar, Aadhartal, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Shayara Bano W/o Azhar Iqbal Khan Aged About 31 Years R/o Opposite Majar, Kelabadi Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ali Ashraf Khan @ Jain Khan S/o Azhar Iqbal Khan Aged About 3.5 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shayara Bano, R/o Opposite Majar, Kelabadi Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nitin Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:49:54 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed in the judgment and finding dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, may kindly be set-aside the suitable order in the interests of justice may kindly be passed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 5th October, 2010 at Kelabadi, Durg, as per Muslim rites and customs. Unfortunately, the respondent wife was not satisfied with the marriage, and thereafter, they decided to live their lives separately. As a consequence, the couple got divorced on 13.01.2014 and started living separately. On 24.08.2015, the respondent/wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The respondent preferred the said application before the Family Court, Durg under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Criminal M.J.C. No. 808/2015. The 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.), in Criminal M.J.C. No. 808/2015, passed an order in favour of the respondents vide order dated 30/09/2019. 4. The learned Family Court, without appreciating the clinching evidence available on record submitted by the applicant regarding his penurious financial status and the fact that the respondent had separated from the applicant with her own consent, granted maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- to the respondents. 5. It is submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the learned Family Court has failed to 3 exercise its jurisdiction judiciously and has displayed undue sympathy in favour of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court grossly erred in appreciating the fact that the object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy, serving a social purpose. It aims to prevent future vagrancy by compelling those who are capable of supporting those who are unable to support themselves and have a moral claim to such support. He submits that learned Family Court wrongly passed the order and erred in appreciating the terms of the compromise executed between the applicant and respondent No. 1, wherein the respondent and applicant agreed to a maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- (in words, One Thousand) per month to be deposited in the account of respondent No. 1 in her Allahabad Bank Account No. 50025567446. However, the Court ordered an amount of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,000/-, which is unreasonable and unjust, particularly when the husband is poor and has prima facie become a victim of the circumstances. He further submits that learned Court further acted unjustly in passing the order by including any additional maintenance amount under any other Act, which would frustrate the very object of granting maintenance. The wife had entered into a compromise with her husband for the maintenance amount and had separated from him of her own will and without any undue influence. He also submits that the applicant, in compliance with the compromise executed between them, has been depositing Rs. 2,000/- in the account of respondent No. 1 towards maintenance from the year 2014 till date. The respondent wife and the applicant husband have not lived together for 4 a long time, and the wife, of her own free will, has separated from the applicant. Therefore, the learned Family Court committed illegality in passing the decree in favour of the respondent wife. Learned Family Court fell into grave error in observing that, since the respondent wife did not file any documents regarding the pay-scale of the husband, the amount awarded by the Court was appropriate. The amount awarded is excessive, exorbitant, and beyond the sources of income of the applicant, who belongs to a poor family and earns only Rs. 5,000/- per month working at a private shop. He submits that the observations made by the learned Family Court are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various cases. The maintenance amount awarded is exorbitant and beyond the known sources of income of the applicant, and the monthly maintenance amount fixed is excessive and unreasonable. It is pertinent to note that in this case, the husband and wife have been living separately for more than five years, a fact that was not taken into consideration by the learned Family Court, along with other relevant facts, leading to an erroneous conclusion. The present applicant has been duly paying the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month in compliance with the compromise executed between the parties, and the maintenance amount awarded by the Court is beyond the applicant’s sources of income. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 5 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek