1 2025:CGHC:34968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1261 of 2022 Mo. Sagir Qureshi S/o Mo. Bafati Qureshi Aged About 43 Years Caste Musalman, R/o Mohalla Karbala Chouk Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Tarmin Fatima W/o Mo. Sagir Qureshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Ganesh Pooja Chowk No.2 Ward No.15 Ompur Colony, Gram Panchayat Rajgamar, P/s Balco, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Laraib Mohammad S/o Mohammed Sagir Qureshi Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tarmin Fatima, R/o Ganesh Pooja Chowk No.2 Ward No.15 Ompur Colony, Gram Panchayat Rajgamar, P/s Balco, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 set-aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Korba (M.Cr.C. No. 116/2018) seeking enhancement of maintenance, and by order dated 18.03.2019, the Court granted ₹3,000 per month to non-applicant No.1 and ₹2,000 to non-applicant No.2. The applicant contends that the non-applicant suppressed material facts in her application, particularly her income from tuition and work as a junior advocate, estimating her earnings at around ₹20,000 per month. He further submitted that he had obtained a decree of divorce and has since remarried, and due to his limited income of ₹7,000 per month from working under another tent house owner (after demolition of his own business on government land), along with responsibilities of his new wife, children, and ailing elderly parents, he is unable to pay the enhanced maintenance. The non- applicant denied these claims, maintained she is unemployed, and argued that earlier orders were justified. The applicant also pointed out that proceedings under Section 9 of the Family Court Act regarding restitution of conjugal rights failed due to lack of reconciliation. After hearing both parties, the Family Court, by order dated 04.11.2022, rejected the applicant’s prayer for reduction of maintenance. Hence, this revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and is therefore liable 3 to be set aside. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents placed before it in the correct perspective. It overlooked the fact that the non-applicant is a well-educated woman holding a professional law degree and is actively practicing as an advocate at the Korba Court, in addition to earning through private tuition. The Court also erred in ignoring that the non- applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. Furthermore, the applicant is earning only ₹7,000 per month while supporting his second wife, children, and aged parents, yet the Court, based on mere assumptions, imputed a higher income to him while disregarding the evident income of the non-applicant. The Family Court also failed to consider that the applicant had lawfully obtained a divorce and now maintains a separate family with added financial responsibilities. In light of these circumstances, the order suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence submitted by both parties, rightly passed the order dated 04.11.2022 rejecting the applicant’s prayer for reduction of maintenance. The Court carefully evaluated the circumstances, including the needs of the non-applicants and the responsibilities of the applicant, and found no justifiable ground to interfere with the 4 earlier maintenance order. The applicant’s contention regarding the non-applicant’s alleged income was not substantiated with credible evidence, and the Court rightly concluded that mere assumptions about her earnings could not be a valid basis for reducing maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant’s subsequent remarriage and increased responsibilities do not absolve him from his legal obligation to maintain his previous dependents. The learned Family Court has, therefore, acted well within its jurisdiction and discretion, and its order reflects a fair and reasoned approach in the interest of justice. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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