1 2025:CGHC:52706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1300 of 2025 Kamran Iqbal S/o Iqbal Ahmad, Aged About 32 Years R/o U.P. Line, Ashrafabad, Jajmau Kanpur, Police Station- Chekri, Post- Siwan (U.P.) PIN 208010 ... Applicant versus 1. Humaira Irshad D/o Irshad Ahmad, Aged About 30 Years W/o Kamran Iqbal, R/o Present Address- Dhaura Tikra, Police Station and Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) 2. Zaina Kamran D/o Kamran Iqbal, Age About 1.6 Years, R/o Present Address- Dhaura Tikra, Police Station and Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. I.A. No. 02/2025, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 432 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.30 18:31:16 +0530 2 condoned. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.80/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Non-Applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- to Non- applicant No.2/daughter. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 29.11.2019 according to Muslim rites and customs. From their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 was born, who is presently 14 years old. It was alleged that initially, the applicant and his family treated non-applicant No.1 properly, but after some time, their behavior changed. The applicant and his family began to quarrel with non-applicant No.1 over trivial matters, subjecting her to physical and mental harassment and frequent insults. The applicant also humiliated her regarding her physical appearance. Despite her family giving dowry according to their capacity, including a car, the applicant further demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash for his business. Hoping that his behavior would improve after counseling, non-applicant No.1 did not file a police complaint. Even after childbirth, she was forced to perform all household chores, and when her health deteriorated, her maternal family bore her medical expenses. The applicant repeatedly 3 threatened her with divorce and compelled her to act against her wishes. It was also alleged that the applicant maintained an illicit relationship with a woman named Shaika, due to which he further harassed non-applicant No.1. Despite several counseling and mediation efforts by her family, the applicant’s conduct did not improve. On an earlier occasion, following a severe assault, non-applicant No.1 had taken shelter at her maternal uncle’s house, but the applicant forcibly brought her back through threats. Again, in April 2023, after renewed harassment and assault, non-applicant No.1 left her matrimonial home on 20.04.2023 along with her minor daughter and began residing with her parents. Since then, the applicant has neither inquired about them nor provided any financial support. It was further stated that non-applicant No.1 is unemployed and unable to maintain herself. The applicant is alleged to be running a leather factory earning approximately Rs.50,000 per month. Hence, it was prayed that the non-applicants be awarded Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance. 6. The applicant filed a written statement before the learned Family Court denying all allegations. He stated that from the beginning, non- applicant No.1 insisted on living separately, refusing to serve his parents and threatening to return to her maternal home otherwise. Accordingly, he rented a house in Ikhlaqnagar, Gangapar, and informed her that it was ready except for some painting work. However, she refused to move, quarreled with him, called her brother, and together they took away all her jewellery, clothes, and belongings before returning to her parental home. The applicant 4 contended that neither he nor his family members ever assaulted or harassed her, nor made any dowry demands. He expressed willingness to keep and maintain the non-applicants and mentioned that he has already filed a case before the learned Family Court, Kanpur, which is pending. He further stated that due to the ban on leather tanning work by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, he is currently working as a laborer, earning Rs. 250 per day, and sustaining himself with difficulty. According to him, non-applicant No.1 is living separately without justifiable cause and has filed a false and fabricated maintenance application, which deserves dismissal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, invalid, contrary to law and procedure, and suffers from illegality and perversity. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that non-applicant No.1 deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause on 20.04.2023, as evidenced by her refusal to shift to the rented separate accommodation arranged by the applicant at Ikhlaqnagar, Gangapar. Under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., a wife who lives separately without justifiable reason is not entitled to maintenance. The Court’s order overlooks this statutory bar, rendering the impugned order perverse and liable to be quashed. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to substantiate the allegations of harassment, dowry demands, physical or mental cruelty, or illicit relations. Non-Applicant No.1 neither lodged any police complaint 5 nor produced any medical records to support her claims of assault or ill health. The learned Court’s reliance on mere uncorroborated statements, without proper cross-examination or supporting evidence, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. The quantum of maintenance awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the child is excessive and disproportionate, particularly considering that non-applicant No.1 is educated, unemployed by choice, and residing with her financially supportive parents. The order fails to balance the needs of the non-applicants against the applicant’s limited means and should therefore be reduced or set aside. Furthermore, the impugned order awards maintenance from the date of the application without recording any reasons for not restricting it to the date of the order, as contemplated under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. This is particularly unjustified when the applicant has demonstrated genuine financial hardship and a bona fide willingness to reconcile. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the non-applicant No.1/wife has neither produced any evidence nor submitted any document to prove that the applicant is the operator of a leather factory. In paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the applicant/husband has admitted that he was running a leather factory at the time of marriage and himself stated that they suffered financial ruin due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the applicant’s present income has not been proved in the case, as 6 admitted by him in paragraph 12 of the cross-examination, the car he received at the time of marriage is still in good condition. This indicates that at the time of marriage, the applicant’s financial condition was sound, due to which the non-applicant’s family had given him a car. The applicant has stated that his father is suffering from a heart ailment, is hospitalized, and requires surgery. Considering all these circumstances, as well as the social and economic status of both parties, the application filed by the non-applicants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is partly allowed, and it is ordered that the applicant/husband shall pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to Non-applicant No.2, totaling Rs. 7,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 29.05.2023. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 11. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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