1 2025:CGHC:36878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 215 of 2020 Tanveer Alam / Khan S/o Mohammad Aminuddin Aged About 24 Years R/o- Tulsi Nagar, Near Sai Mandir, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Shop- Tanveer Boot House, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Nusrat Parveen W/o Mohammad Tanveer Alam / Khan Aged About 20 Years R/o- Gulab Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sakeena Khatun D/o Mohammad Tanveer Alam / Khan Aged About 7 Months, (Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Nusrat Parveen, W/o Tanveer Alam / Khan, Respondent No. 1) R/o- Gulab Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mandavi Bharadwaj, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.94/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact in this case that the applicant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife, and a daughter (respondent No.2) was born from their marital life on April 9, 2016. Due to the respondent's non-appearance, an ex-parte proceeding was initiated against him on July 31, 2019. After marriage, the applicant used to abuse and physically assault the respondent No.1 over minor issues, and his mother used to taunt and abuse her. The respondent No.1 was not provided with sufficient food. The applicant used to accuse the applicant that Rs. 6 lakhs were spent on the marriage. Despite giving Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and other items to the applicant, the respondent No.1 was thrown out of the house. During her stay at her in-laws' place, the respondent’s father-in-law would often make indecent proposals to her and threaten her with a knife when she refused. The applicant brought a woman named Radha to the house, claiming that they had a relationship before marriage. Despite being counseled, the applicant continued his cruel behavior and avoided providing maintenance. When the respondent No.1 could no longer tolerate the cruel behavior, she filed an FIR on December 3 12, 2017, and a case was registered against the applicant. The respondent No.1 is illiterate and has no source of income. It is also pleaded that the applicant owns a shoe business named Tanveer Boot House and earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. He owns a three-story house and has agricultural land. The respondents have prayed for a total maintenance amount of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 20,000 each). Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the respondents, which is not justified and reasonable considering the present circumstances and cost of living. Further, he failed to consider that the applicant is a laborer and does not own a shoe shop, which impacts his financial capacity to pay maintenance. The respondent's decision to live separately without sufficient reason dis-entitles her to maintenance, especially since the applicant is willing to cohabitate and maintain her. He further submits that the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant on July 31, 2019, and awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,500/- without providing an opportunity for the applicant to present evidence before the learned Family Court. The award of maintenance amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the respondent is unjustified and unreasonable considering the present situation and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the correct factual position of the case, despite sufficient evidence, statements, and 4 documents on record that demonstrate the applicant's inability to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 6,500/- to the respondents. The applicant's willingness to live with the respondent, as per the counseling, was also not given due consideration. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent No.1’s statement remains uncontroverted as the applicant ceased to defend himself. The respondent No.1's statement is corroborated by her witness, Aslam Ansari. The respondent’s evidence clearly establishes that the applicant treated his wife with cruelty in various ways, including physical assault, abuse, and taunts for dowry. It is also evident from the respondent No.1’s testimony that the applicant’s father would sometimes molest her. Therefore, the respondent No.1’s decision to live with her parents is justified, and she is entitled to receive maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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