1 2025:CGHC:45414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1099 of 2025 Shekh Amjad S/o Late Abdul Rajaak Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Job In S.E.C.L. R/o Village Khongapani (Pakka Dhouda) Police Station- Jhagrakhad, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh, Chirmiri, Bharatpur (M.C.B.), (C.G.) Present Address- S.E.C.L. Ramnagar, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- Anuppur (M.P.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Reshma Akhatar W/o Shekh Amjad Aged About 30 Years R/o Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.09.2025 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 this revision and further be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. It was alleged that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 30.04.2019 at Lakhanpur, District Surguja, as per Muslim customs and rituals, and after residing together for some time, the applicant subjected respondent to cruelty and demanded dowry, compelling her to return to her parental home. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and contended that respondent, without sufficient cause, left the matrimonial home and refused to live with him, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It was also submitted that the applicant has no independent source of income. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, allowed the interim application and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside as it suffers from factual and legal infirmities. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence available on record and has wrongly interpreted the documents produced by the applicant, thereby committing a serious legal error. It is further submitted that respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason 3 despite repeated efforts by the applicant and his family members to bring her back, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant has no independent source of income and is already burdened with the responsibility of supporting his parents and unmarried younger siblings, making it financially impossible for him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also argued that since the parties are governed by Muslim personal law, the respondent is not legally entitled to interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order is erroneous, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and deserves to be set aside. 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 marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 30.04.2019 as per Muslim customs and rituals, and they resided together as husband and wife. The allegations made by respondent regarding cruelty and demand for dowry, which compelled her to return to her parental home, could not be dislodged by the applicant through any cogent evidence. The learned Family Court, after evaluating the circumstances and financial needs of respondent and the minor dependents, rightly held that respondent, having no independent source of income, is entitled to interim maintenance for her sustenance. The quantum of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 4 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. 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