1 2025:CGHC:57311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 928 of 2022 Salim Bakhs S/o Late Madar Bakhs, Aged About 56 Years R/o Adarsh Chowk, Mangla, House Of Mohammad Bashir, Thana Civil Lines, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Nazma Begum D/o Late Safiulla Khan W/o Samil Bakhs, Aged About 50 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Chantidih, Thana Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu holding the brief of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.631/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent were married on 05.06.1988 as per Muslim customs. After living together until 1990, the respondent began living separately at her maternal home. The respondent alleges that the applicant remarried one Yashoda Thakur, due to which she could not return to the matrimonial home. In 1993, a compromise took place, and she again started living with the applicant. In 1994, their son Mohd. Rizwan was born. Later, the applicant again brought his second wife to stay with him, and in 1996, he allegedly assaulted the respondent and drove her out while she was pregnant. Since then, she has been living with her maternal family. The respondent further states that in 2017, when she asked the applicant for financial help for their daughter’s marriage, he refused and went to live with his second wife. She claims that the applicant earns around Rs. 20,000/- per month, while she had to borrow Rs. 4,00,000/- for the daughter's marriage. She has no sufficient income and seeks maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant, in his written statement, denies the allegations and submits that the respondent voluntarily left him and stayed at her maternal home for many years. He claims he earns only Rs. 8,500/- per month, has to maintain his second wife and children, while the respondent earns Rs. 5,000/- 3 per month as an Anganwadi worker and has an adult son who also earns. He states that she is capable of maintaining herself and has no valid reason to live separately. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent, which the applicant has challenged in the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly assess the income of both parties. The respondent herself admitted that she earns ₹5,000 per month, which has now increased to Rs.6,500/- per month. On the other hand, the applicant is only a daily-wage employee in the Municipal Corporation and earns about Rs.8,500/- per month. He further submits that the respondent also admitted that she has been living separately on her own, despite the applicant’s continuous efforts to resume cohabitation. She repeatedly left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house without any sufficient cause. He also submits that the respondent failed to prove her claim through the evidence on record. Despite this, the trial court erroneously allowed her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance. The order is contrary to the evidence, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 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.3,500/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, after assessing the evidence and financial status of both parties, concluded that the applicant–husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife and has failed to fulfil his legal and social obligation towards her. The Court found that the wife was compelled to live separately due to the husband's second marriage and continuous neglect, and that despite being employed, she is not in a financially secure position. Considering the husband's earning capacity, overall circumstances, and his duty under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court granted the respondent- wife monthly maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 5 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil