1 2025:CGHC:40139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1216 of 2023 Mirza Afzal Beg S/o Mirza Bashir Beg Aged About 28 Years R/o Sagona Near Urja Park, Aziz Medium English Schol, P.S. And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rahnuma Begum W/o Mirza Afzal Beg Aged About 27 Years R/o Sagona Near Urja Park, (Majgaon) Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Present Address Adarsh Nagar Ward No. 07, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Arshnal Beg S/o Mirza Afzal Beg Aged About 4 Years (Minor) Through Its Legal Representative Mother Smt. Rahnuma Beg, W/o Mirza Afzal Beg, R/o Sagona Near Urja Park, (Majgaon) Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Present Address Adarsh Nagar Ward No. 07, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Raza Ali, learned Counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also head ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:50 +0530 2 Ms. Lata Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been >led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Court act and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 54/2022 passed by the, Family Court, Kabirdham.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 herein are husband and wife. They got married on 07.08.2014 as per Muslim rites and rituals, and respondent No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. The respondents >led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Kabirdham, and made averments that the applicant and respondent No. 1 got married, and immediately after marriage, the applicant and his family members used to assault respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the respondents, along with the applicant, resided separately. It was further alleged that the applicant used to assault respondent No. 1 without any reason and had fraudulently taken her signature on an agreement dated 22.11.2021. Allegations were also made that the applicant had solemnised a second marriage. The respondents further stated that respondent No. 1 is a housewife, unable to work, and that the applicant used to work as a driver earning Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, while the applicant’s father used to earn Rs. 1,000/- per day. They sought maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3 3,000/- per month for respondent No. 2, i.e., a total amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month for both respondents. 4. After issuance of notice, the applicant marked his appearance before the Family Court and >led a reply to the application >led by the respondents. Except for admitting the marriage and the birth of Respondent No. 2, the applicant denied all other averments made by the respondents and stated that respondent No. 1 is residing separately from the applicant without any suBcient reason and is therefore not entitled to any maintenance. The applicant further stated that he is ready to keep the respondents with him. It was also averred that respondent No. 1 has an illicit relationship with another person and used to talk to him on her mobile phone. She was allegedly caught red-handed by the applicant, for which respondent No. 1 executed an apology letter and swore that she would not contact the said person again. However, despite the apology letter, she continued to talk to the said person through her mobile phone. This was objected to by the applicant, whereupon, in 2021, respondent No. 1, of her own will, started residing separately from the applicant. She also executed an agreement with the applicant in this regard and agreed that she would not claim any maintenance from him. The applicant made several other averments in his reply. 5. After the >ling of the reply, the Family Court gave opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Upon completion of evidence, the Family Court heard the >nal arguments and, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2023, allowing the maintenance application of the respondents and awarding Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, i.e., a total amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of the Family Court is perverse and not sustainable in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court has failed to see that respondent No. 1 had no suBcient reason to reside separately. He submits that the mother of respondent No. 1 has speci>cally stated that the character of her daughter, i.e., respondent No. 1, is not good; that she used to assault the applicant; and that she used to talk to some other person on her mobile phone, and for that reason, she is residing separately. He also submits that respondent No. 1 has herself admitted that she used to talk to some other person on her mobile phone and, for this reason, she is residing separately. She has also admitted her apology letter written by her, but despite this, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2023, which is contrary to law. The respondents have not produced any evidence regarding the monthly income of the applicant, yet the learned Family Court, without any proper assessment of the applicant’s income, passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents have not shown any suBcient reason to live separately, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of maintenance. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by 5 this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek