1 2026:CGHC:315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1290 of 2022 Ibteshar Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Hazi Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Aged About 47 Years R/o- Kharmora, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Shabana Khan D/o - Mohammad Hanif Khan, Aged About 38 Years R/o - Infront Of Petrol Pump, Rajendra Path, Vaishali, Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Sumaila Parveen, D/o Ibteshar Ahmed Khan, Aged About 8 Years 06 Months, R/o - Infront Of Petrol Pump, Rajendra Path, Vaishali, Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District-Korba (C.G) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 41/2019 in the case title “Ibteshar Ahmed Khan Vs. Shabana Khan and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 another” (AnnexureP/1) in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact that the non- applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, which was registered as Case No. 15/11, and vide order dated 17.10.2014, a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance. Thereafter, the non-applicants preferred an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, registered as Case No. 236/16, and vide order dated 08.08.2017, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 11,500/- per month. Except for the aforesaid admitted facts, the remaining allegations are specifically denied. The case of the applicant, as set out in the present application, is that upon obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, it was revealed that non-applicant No. 1 had not admitted any girl named “Sumaila Parveen” in any school, nor was such child studying in any school. Despite this, the applicant has been paying an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 towards education and maintenance. Since non- applicant No. 2 is not studying in any school, continuation of the said expenditure is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be stopped forthwith. It is further contended that non-applicant No. 1 does not have any daughter named Sumaila Parveen, nor is she educating any such child, whereas Sumaila Parveen is, in fact, the biological daughter of the applicant, and maintenance has been awarded by the learned Family Court expressly in her name. The applicant asserts that non-applicant No. 1 is employed as a teacher at Beacon 3 School, Kusmunda, from where she earns approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month, with a clear possibility of future increments, and therefore she is not entitled to receive any maintenance. The applicant has further pleaded that Sumaila Parveen is his daughter and that after non-applicants No. 1 and 2 started living separately from him since the night of 01.10.2010 and after divorce on 23.04.2011, non- applicant No. 1 gave birth to another daughter in the year 2013, whom she named “Kumari Laiba Khan”. However, with an intention to mislead the Court, non-applicant No. 1 falsely showed the date of birth of Laiba Khan as 02.08.2010, whereas the applicant’s daughter Sumaila Parveen was born by surgical operation on 02.08.2010 at D.K. Hospital, Korba. In contrast, the birth certificate of Laiba Khan was obtained showing her birth at Vaishali Nagar, Kusmunda, on the basis of afÏdavits, panchanama and hospital records, thereby committing fraud upon the Court. It is alleged that by suppressing true facts and misrepresenting identity, non-applicant No. 1 has been illegally recovering maintenance for herself and for a child to whom she is not legally entitled. The applicant further submits that no birth certificate of the child allegedly studying in school has been submitted to the school authorities, and the entire claim of education expenses is based on falsehood. Thus, non-applicant No. 1 has committed gross fraud, and therefore the entire maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month being deducted from the applicant’s salary along with Rs. 3,500/- paid in cash towards alleged arrears deserves to be stopped immediately, and the amount recovered from 17.10.2014 till date be 4 directed to be refunded to the applicant. The applicant has further averred that he has no knowledge as to the present whereabouts of his daughter, who has never been produced before the Court, nor has he been afforded any opportunity to see or interact with her despite repeated requests. The applicant has contracted a second marriage and has a minor daughter aged about one year and six months, whose maintenance expenses are also being borne by him. Therefore, in view of the fact that non-applicant No. 1 gave birth to another daughter after divorce, the applicant prays that the entire maintenance amount be stopped and the recovered amount be refunded. 3. In reply, the non-applicants admitted only the facts stated in paragraph 02 of their reply and denied all other allegations. They contended that the applicant has been regularly paying maintenance and asserted that when the case was initially filed, the name of their daughter was mentioned as “Kumari Sumaila Parveen”, being a newborn, and later her school name was recorded as “Laiba Khan”, with the applicant’s knowledge. It was claimed that the applicant never objected earlier, and that presently the child, known as Sumaila Parveen alias Laiba Khan, is studying in Class IV at Beacon School, Kusmunda. It was also stated that non-applicant No. 1 was working as a temporary teacher and was called only as and when required. The non-applicants further stated that non-applicant No. 1 has no permanent employment, has not contracted any second marriage and that the present application has been filed by the applicant solely with an intention to avoid payment of maintenance. It 5 was pleaded that the applicant had earlier also initiated proceedings to evade maintenance and that the present application, being based on false and concocted facts, is not maintainable. It was further contended that the non-applicants have no independent source of income and rejection of the applicant’s application is necessary in the interest of justice, failing which they would suffer irreparable loss. 4. After appreciating the documents and material available on record and on the basis of the aforesaid analysis of evidence and the conclusions reached on the points for consideration, it is found that the applicant has failed to substantiate his application. Accordingly, the applicant’s application was rejected. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law as well as on facts while passing the impugned order dated 07.09.2021, as it failed to properly appreciate the material placed on record. It is contended that, pursuant to information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the ofÏce of the Principal, Beacon English Higher Secondary School, Kusmunda, District Korba (C.G.), it has been categorically stated that non-applicant No.1 has neither admitted non-applicant No.2, her alleged daughter, in the said school nor is she studying there, as evidenced by the letter dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure-P/2). Despite this, non-applicant No.1 is receiving a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month towards the educational expenses of non-applicant No.2, and since non-applicant No.2 is not studying in any school, the continuation of maintenance awarded in her favour is wholly unjustified. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 has no daughter in the name of 6 Sumaila Parveen studying in the said school, whereas Sumaila Parveen is, in fact, the real daughter of the applicant and the learned Family Court has erroneously awarded maintenance in her favour, as is evident from its own order. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that non-applicant No.1 is working as a Teacher at Beacon School, Kusmunda, drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month with prospects of increment, thereby disentitling her from claiming maintenance from the applicant. It is further submitted that the non- applicants have been living separately from the applicant since 01.10.2010 and, after divorce on 23.04.2011, continued to reside separately, that a daughter born in the year 2013 was named Kumari Layba Khan, whose date of birth was falsely shown as 02.08.2010 with an intention to mislead the Court, whereas the applicant’s real daughter was born on 02.08.2010 at D.K. Hospital, Korba, which is clearly established from the medical certificate, statements of non- applicant No.1 and the birth certificate filed collectively as Annexure- P/3. It is thus submitted that non-applicant No.1 suppressed material facts and obtained the order of maintenance by misrepresentation, ignoring the documents which clearly demonstrate that Sumaila Parveen is not the daughter on whose behalf maintenance could have been claimed. She further submits that detailed written arguments highlighting these facts were filed before the learned Family Court on 02.09.2021, clearly stating that out of the two daughters of non-applicant No.1, only non-applicant No.2 is alleged to be the real daughter of the applicant, a copy whereof is filed as 7 Annexure-P/4. Accordingly, she prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings of the parties and properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the income, employment and capacity of non-applicant No.01, as well as the evidence relating to the identity and maintenance of the minor child. The learned Family Court has rightly recorded that the applicant failed to establish that the minor child is not his daughter or that the non-applicants are having sufÏcient independent income to maintain themselves. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal