1 2025:CGHC:47307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 310 of 2020 Salma Khan W/o Ejaz Parvez Aged About 52 Years R/o Danteshwari Ward No. 20, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ejaz Parvez S/o Ibrahim Parvez Aged About 57 Years R/o Juni Line, Mohalla, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. No.62/2015, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the non-applicant are legally wedded spouses, having solemnized their marriage on 11.08.1996 at Hotel Alnear, Raipur (C.G.) in accordance with Islamic rites and rituals. Thereafter, they began cohabiting as husband and wife at the matrimonial home located at Juni Line, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:43:30 +0530 2 Bilaspur (C.G.). During the period of cohabitation, the applicant became pregnant, but the non-applicant forcibly terminated the pregnancy by administering unknown medicines. The applicant was subjected to cruelty by the non-applicant, who also used her body for medical/medicine experiments. Additionally, the applicant was harassed by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. As a result of the unauthorized medical experiments, the applicant developed serious health complications. Taking advantage of her ill health, the non-applicant deserted her and left her at her parental home in Jagdalpur on 19.12.1996. Subsequently, the non-applicant sent a Talaqnama to the applicant through her father, which was received by the applicant on 20.12.1997. The applicant was compelled to approach the police, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 498A IPC against the non-applicant and her in-laws, vide Crime No. 439/97. The police submitted a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Although the divorce was effected, the non- applicant failed to pay any maintenance to the applicant, despite not having remarried. The applicant was unable to maintain herself and became destitute. Due to the non-applicant’s failure to maintain her, the applicant filed an application under Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 on 09.03.1998. The said application was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, in MJC No. 45/98, vide order dated 30.04.2003. The non-applicant was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for the three-month Iddat period and to return the Mehr amount of Rs. 21,786/-. 3 3. Despite her best efforts, the applicant could not sustain herself and became a destitute. In contrast, the non-applicant owns a well- established medical store in Bilaspur and earns more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The applicant, therefore, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Jagdalpur on 15.06.2015, seeking maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance and appointment of a court friend. Upon receipt of notice, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, objecting to the maintainability of the application under Section 125 CrPC on the ground that the applicant had already obtained relief under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1986. He further contended that the applicant is liable to be prosecuted for filing the second application. The Family Court, vide order dated 20.09.2017, kept the objection pending and called for records of the previous proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant legal aspects of the matter, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. For the reason that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting the applicant's application without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. or the reason that the learned Family Court committed a grave illegality by failing to consider that the non-applicant is gainfully employed, while the applicant is destitute and without any source of income. The learned Family Court failed to take into account the patent illegality that the applicant is unable to maintain herself and is living separately from the non-applicant for 4 justified reasons, including cruelty inflicted upon her. The learned Family Court has not adhered to the mandatory provisions of law and has misapplied the provisions of Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. For the reason that there is patent illegality and a clear error of jurisdiction in the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the entire proceedings, including the impugned order, deserve to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti