1 2026:CGHC:2204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 60 of 2026 Asgar Ansari S/o Shri Anul Haq Ansari Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Gopal Sheet Grih Mauharpara, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Farheen Naaz Ansari D/o Shri M.R. Ansari, W/o Shri Asgar Ansari Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Chirmiri, P.S. Pondi, Tahsil Chirmiri, Distt. M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 2 - Haniya Fatima D/o Shri Asagar Ansari Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Farheen Naaz Ansari, R/o Ward No. 04, Chirmiri, P.S. Pondi, Tahsil Chirmiri, Distt. M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and quashed the order dated 19.09.2025, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present applicant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife, and respondent No.2 is their minor daughter. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 21.11.2020 according to Muslim rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock respondent No.2 was born. It was alleged that after about two months of marriage, the behavior of the applicant changed and he along with his mother subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and demand of dowry, due to which she was compelled to reside at her parental house at Chirmiri since February 2023, and a complaint in this regard was lodged on 23.02.2023. It was further contended that respondent No.1 is a housewife having no source of income and that the applicant, being a financially sound person, is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply admitting the marriage and birth of the child but denying all other allegations, contending that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home on her own accord without any just cause, that no dowry was ever demanded, and that the complaint was filed only to harass him. The applicant further pleaded that he is ready and willing to keep the respondents with him, and that respondent No.1 is educated and capable of earning. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and 3 Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the application. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned order and the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents is neither just nor proper. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1/wife herself left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient or reasonable cause and, therefore, the award of maintenance is bad in the eye of law. He further submits that the applicant has always been ready and willing to keep the respondents with him according to his status and capacity and to maintain them properly so as to lead a happy married and family life, which vital aspect has been completely ignored by the learned Court below. It is further contended that the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the applicant was working as an Outlet Manager in Bikkgane Biryani only up to 31.07.2025 and has resigned from the said employment, and thus the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is unsustainable, for which a certificate has been filed and marked as Annexure A-2. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 is presently working as a teacher in IERC – The Flying School and is earning Rs.4,000/- per month, a fact duly supported by letter dated 13.10.2025 filed as Annexure A- 3, and therefore the impugned order granting maintenance is liable to be set aside. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record, has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Court correctly took into consideration the admitted relationship between the parties, the factum of marriage solemnized on 21.11.2020 according to Muslim rites and rituals, and the birth of respondent No.2 from the said wedlock, as well as the allegations regarding cruelty and neglect leading respondent No.1 to reside separately since February 2023. The learned Family Court also duly considered the financial condition, status, and capacity of the applicant and the absence of any independent source of income of respondent No.1, and thereafter exercised sound judicial discretion in granting a modest and reasonable amount of maintenance. The direction to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the application, vide order dated 19.09.2025, is just, proper, and in consonance with the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 CrPC,. 6. Considering the submission 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan