1 2025:CGHC:41857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1205 of 2024 Sheikh Shahid S/o Late Sheikh Majid Aged About 45 Years R/o Chatapara, Near Bajrang Akhada Bilaspur, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... applicant versus Shahina Tarannum W/o Sheikh Shahid Aged About 34 Years D/o Iqbal Husain, R/o Mudapar, In Front of Post Office , Subhash Block, SECL, Korba Tahsil and District – Korba, Chhattisgarh ... applicant For applicant : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. For applicant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.03/2019, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant that he has to pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.22 19:34:14 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC against the applicant, namely, Sekh sahid for maintenance. The admitted fact is that the marriage of both the parties has been solemnized according to Muslim law. On the complaint of the respondent a criminal case under Section 498-A, 377/34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant and his relatives, which is still pending. An application for reinstatement of marital relations was submitted by the applicant which was withdrawn. The application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC was preferred by the respondent against applicant stating inter-alia that the applicant was married with respondent on 28.06.2018 at CRC Club SECL Korba, District Korba (C.G.) according the Muslim Law and the respondent went to her matrimonial house at Bilaspur with the applicant. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the father of the present respondent has given dowry (case money & Gold) and household articles to the family of the applicant but they were not satisfied with the articles given by the father of the present respondent. It is alleged that just after a week from the marriage the present respondent subjected to cruelty and the applicant started harassing and tortured to the present respondent for demand of dowry. The applicant used to put pressure on the respondent to commit unnatural sexual intercourse and threatened her if she did not do so. one day on 10.09.2018 at around of 11:30 A.M. the burners of the gas stove in the kitchen were opened and the applicant and relatives conspired and made an unsuccessful attempt to kill the respondent. On the same day in 3 morning the applicant had called the respondent's father and told him to take the respondent to his home. The respondent came home with her father as she felt that her life was in danger due to constant physical and mental torture by the applicant and his relatives. 3. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 6,000/-per month to the respondent as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erroneously held that the respondent had reasonable cause to live separately. However, her own cross- examination contradicts this finding. In para 64 of the judgment, she admitted that she left the matrimonial home on 10/09/2018 and never returned. She further stated that she enrolled in a B.Ed. course at Baradwar in November–December 2018, which she completed in 2020, and is now pursuing an MSW. In para 33 of her cross- examination, she acknowledged having completed postgraduate degrees in Political Science and Sociology prior to marriage, and that she was pursuing a PGDCA course at MLC College, Korba at the time of marriage, with examinations held from 5th to 28th July 2018. She also confirmed that she completed the MSW as a regular 4 student. In para 54, she admitted that after leaving the applicant’s house, she made no attempts to seek employment, despite being highly qualified. These facts clearly establish that the respondent has not returned to the matrimonial home since 10/09/2018 and has not taken any steps to support herself through employment. The learned Family Court's finding that the respondent is living separately for a valid reason is clearly erroneous in light of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court also failed to provide any reasoning for her inaction in seeking employment. This omission leads to the inevitable conclusion that she is earning her livelihood through the tailoring boutique and beauty parlour business, previously run with her sisters. When confronted with a photograph of the board of "Shahina Boutique and Beauty Parlour," she admitted that her younger sister is currently running the business. Therefore, the conclusion of the Family Court—that the respondent is unable to maintain herself—is both erroneous and unsustainable. There is no corroboration of any allegations to the testimony of the applicant and there is no proof of any allegations that she has made and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated and deserves to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti