1 2026:CGHC:7418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 201 of 2022 1 - Raisha Ansari Wd/o Moh. Idrish Ansari Aged About 34 Years R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anam Ansari S/o Late Moh. Adrish Ansari Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through His Mother Petitioner No.1, Raisha Ansari, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Bashiran Ansari W/o Moh. Hamid Ansari Aged About 65 Years R/o Opp. Nema X-Ray Center, Mahila Poliec Station Road, Masanganj, Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 13.01.2022 and be allowed the application of the applicants, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No. 01 was solemnized with the son of the non-applicant, Late Mohd. Idrish Ansari, on 10.01.2014 in accordance with Muslim customs and law. Out of their wedlock, applicant No. 02 was born on 07.06.2016. The husband of applicant No. 01 and father of applicant No. 02 expired on 23.07.2018. The non-applicant is the mother-in-law of applicant No. 01 and grandmother of applicant No. 02. She is a pensioner from the Railway Department and earns rental income of Rs. 18,000/- from the Masanganj house, Rs. 5,000/- from House No. C- 36 situated at Rajaswa Colony, Sarkanda, and Rs. 40,000/- from a 15-room house situated at Mari Mai Road, Talapara, Bilaspur. It is further alleged that the applicants have no source of income and are living in destitute condition. The non-applicant has not provided any amount to the applicants from her income or from the ancestral properties. Therefore, it is prayed that an order of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month be granted separately to the applicants from the non-applicant. 4. After service of notice, the non-applicant >led her written statement denying the facts of the case. She submitted that her double-storey house consisting of four rooms situated at Talapara is occupied by her two daughters, namely Israt Anjum and Nikhat Anjum, along with their families. She further stated that the house at Masanganj, Bilaspur is a joint property of her husband and his brothers and is under dispute, for which a case is pending before this Hon’ble High 3 Court. The Masanganj house presently stands in the names of Ishahak Ansari, Sa? Ansari, Saied Ansari, Wahid Ansari, and Hamid Ansari and therefore she is not liable to pay any amount from that property. She further submitted that from the house situated in Sarkanda, Rajaswa Colony, she earns Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent, which she spends on herself and on her grandson Arban Ansari, aged about 12 years, who is the son of the >rst wife of her deceased son. She also submitted that the house situated at Talapara is her Mehar property, over which no claim can be made by any other person. She contended that applicant No. 01 is a young woman capable of maintaining herself by working anywhere and has unnecessarily >led the claim against her. 5. The learned Family Court framed issues after completion of pleadings of both parties and recorded evidence under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. applicant No. 01 examined herself and one other witness. The non- applicant examined herself and another witness, Smt. So>ya Begum. Copies of the statements of both parties and their cross- examinations are >led herewith as Annexure P/4. 6. After recording the statements of both parties and their witnesses and hearing arguments, the learned Family Court rejected the application of the applicants vide impugned order dated 12.01.2022. Hence, the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and against the settled provisions of law, 4 and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is in receipt of substantial rental income from houses situated at Masanganj, Rajkishore Nagar, and Talapara, Bilaspur, which are ancestral properties of the deceased husband of applicant No. 01 and father of applicant No. 02. Despite deriving income from the said properties, the non- applicant has neither provided any share of the rental income to the applicants nor permitted them to reside in the said properties. The learned Family Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the maintenance application of the applicants, ignoring that the non- applicant is >nancially capable and earning rent from the ancestral properties, while the applicants have no independent source of livelihood and are living in destitution. The applicants are legally entitled to maintenance from the non-applicant at least until partition of the ancestral properties is e@ected and their lawful share is delivered. The learned Family Court further failed to consider the dependency of the applicants upon the deceased husband/father and the income arising from the family properties managed by the non-applicant, particularly when the applicants are unable to maintain themselves. The impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind and in disregard of material evidence showing that the non-applicant is earning approximately Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month from house rent, whereas the applicants are struggling for basic sustenance and even two meals a day, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. Therefore, they prays that the impugned order deserves to be set- 5 aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence of both sides, rejected the application primarily on the ground that under the provisions of Muslim Law read with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the liability to maintain is fastened upon the husband or other speci>ed male relatives, and there exists no legal provision imposing an obligation upon a mother-in-law or grandmother to provide maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law or granddaughter. The Family Court recorded a categorical >nding that the non-applicant, being the mother of the deceased husband, does not fall within the category of persons legally bound to maintain the applicants under the aforesaid provisions. The learned Family Court further considered the defence of the non-applicant that the properties at Masanganj are disputed joint ancestral properties, the matter of which is pending adjudication and that the Talapara house is her exclusive Mehar property. It was also taken into account that the Sarkanda house stands in the name of her deceased husband and other legal heirs have a share therein. The 6 Court further noted the evidence adduced by the non-applicant regarding her old age, medical expenses, and >nancial responsibility towards her minor grandson Arban Ansari. The learned Court also considered the allegation that applicant No. 01 is an able-bodied young woman and is employed as a teacher, and therefore capable of maintaining herself. On these premises, the learned Family Court held that the applicants do not fall within the statutory entitlement for claiming maintenance from the non- applicant and accordingly rejected the application. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon re-appreciation of the impugned order and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Family Court has properly examined the legal provisions as well as the factual matrix of the case. The >nding recorded by the Family Court that there is no statutory liability upon a mother-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law or granddaughter under Muslim Law or Section 125 Cr.P.C. is based on correct interpretation of law. The conclusions drawn regarding the nature of the properties, >nancial condition of the non-applicant, and the capacity of applicant No. 01 to maintain herself are >ndings of fact based on evidence and do not su@er from perversity or illegality warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. This Court does not >nd any jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or illegality in the impugned order as passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to 7 be and is hereby dismissed. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal