1 2026:CGHC:19900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 583 of 2026 Mohammad Maqsood S/o Mohammad Dargahi Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o- Jaipur Seat Cover, Beside Sanjay Sanjay Center Infront Daga Dharamshala, Sihava Chowk Dhamtari, Tahisl And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Shabnam Khatun W/o Mohammad Maqsood Aged About 37 Years R/o Aama Talab, Street No. 3 Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Zafar Hussain S/o Mohammad Maqsood Aged About 20 Years R/o Aama Talab, Street No. 3 Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Jasmin Parveen D/o Mohammad Maqsood Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Shabnam Khatun, R/o Aama Talab, Street No. 3 Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Ayasha Ansari D/o Mohammad Maqsood Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Shabnam Khatun, R/o Aama Talab, Street No. 3 Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Judge Family Court Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 331/2025 in the case titled "Shabnam Khatun & others Vs. Mohammad Maqsood" (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 19.05.2004 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals at Village Chakalrasha, District Jahanabad (Bihar), and out of the said wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were born, who are presently residing with their mother i.e., respondent No. 1. After the marriage, respondent No. 1 came to Dhamtari and started residing with the applicant, who is running a shop in the name and style of “Jaipur Seat Cover” at Sihava Chowk, Dhamtari. It is the case of the respondents that after some time of marriage, the behavior of the applicant changed and he started coming home late, remaining absent for long durations, and allegedly subjecting respondent No. 1 to mental and physical cruelty. It is further alleged that the applicant developed an illicit relationship with one Haseena Begum, which led to frequent disputes between the parties. The respondents have further contended that despite having three children, the applicant neglected and deserted respondent No. 1, stopped providing 3 financial support, and ultimately sent a notice of divorce, and since February 2025, he has been living separately. It is also alleged that respondent No. 1 is suffering from health issues and has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the children, whereas the applicant is earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month from his business and also possesses other properties. Per contra, the applicant denied all allegations in his reply, stating that he has been falsely implicated, that respondent No. 1 used to suspect him without any basis and harass him, and that he has no extramarital relationship; further, he stated that his shop is temporary and subject to eviction proceedings. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 17.03.2026, partly allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,200/- per month (Rs. 800/- each to the respondents). Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both in law as well as on facts while passing the impugned order dated 17.03.2026. It is contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that respondent No. 2 is a major and has already completed his B.Sc., and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that the respondents are receiving rental income from a house situated at Aama Talab, which is being utilized for their day-to-day expenses, and this material 4 aspect has been overlooked. It is also submitted that the applicant is running a temporary shop situated on Railway land, for which a notice of demolition has already been issued by the Railway Department, and therefore, the income of the applicant is neither stable nor sufÏcient, and the finding regarding his financial capacity is erroneous. It is further contended that the applicant does not own 02 acres of agricultural land or a house at Village Bajitpur, as alleged by respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 is residing separately from the applicant without any sufÏcient cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 1 used to frequently quarrel with the applicant, cast unwarranted aspersions on his character, and humiliate him in front of others, and despite repeated efforts by the applicant to maintain cordial relations, the matrimonial relationship could not be sustained due to her conduct. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 had even threatened the applicant with divorce in the presence of her family members, causing him mental harassment, and ultimately, being aggrieved by such conduct, the applicant started living separately. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 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 has rightly appreciated both the facts and the law while passing the impugned order dated 17.03.2026. The learned Court has duly taken into account the marital relationship 5 between the parties, the existence of three children born out of the wedlock, and the fact that the respondents are residing separately and are dependent upon respondent No. 1 for their sustenance. The allegations regarding neglect, desertion, and failure on the part of the applicant to provide financial support have been considered in light of the evidence placed on record. The learned Family Court has also rightly assessed the earning capacity of the applicant, who is engaged in running a business, and has accordingly fixed a modest and reasonable amount of maintenance, i.e., Rs. 3,200/- per month (Rs. 800/- each), which cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. 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 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