1 2025:CGHC:54860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1359 of 2025 Faruq Memon Lotani S/o Late Mohd. Bhai Aged About 65 Years R/o Harra Padav, In Front Of Gausiy Masjid, Keshkal, Police Station- Keshkal, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sayra Ali W/o Faruq Memon Lotani Aged About 46 Years At Present Resident Of C/o House Of Jubeda Ali, Chourasiya Colony, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.704/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) before the Learned Family Court seeking maintenance, alleging that her Nikaah with the applicant was solemnized on 27.12.2018 as per Muslim rites. She stated that though she had informed the applicant about her previous marriage and son, the applicant later refused to accept her son and, thereafter, subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. It was further alleged that the applicant and his family members regularly assaulted her, doubted her character, and eventually deserted her after shifting to a rented house at Chourasiya Colony, Raipur, where they lived for a month. Subsequently, on 21.10.2021, the applicant sent a divorce notice to her. Having no source of income, the respondent filed the present maintenance case. 3. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations, contending that the respondent concealed her previous marriage and son at the time of Nikaah and that she had not obtained divorce from her previous husband. He submitted that he had already divorced her as per Muslim law and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. The applicant also claimed to be an old and ailing person with no income, while alleging that the respondent was earning 3 Rs.25,000/- per month by working in a Madrasa. After hearing both parties, the Learned Family Court, vide order dated 03.09.2025, directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 is bad in law, arbitrary, and perverse, it deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. It further overlooked that the respondent, being a healthy and able-bodied woman, is capable of maintaining herself. The Court also failed to consider that she concealed her previous marriage and son from the applicant and contracted marriage without obtaining a valid divorce from her previous husband, rendering the present marriage void in the eyes of law. He further submits that the applicant is a 70-year-old infirm person suffering from serious ailments like heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes, with no stable source of income. The grant of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive and disproportionate to his financial condition. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable both in law and on facts. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, observing the the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances on record, concluded that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that she has sufficient and reasonable grounds to live separately due to the cruelty and harassment inflicted upon her. Accordingly, the Court held her entitled to receive maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil