1 2026:CGHC:5539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 757 of 2024 Junaid Khan S/o Hakeem Khan, Aged About 34 Years At Near Durga Maidan, Gandhi Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Yasmeen Khan W/o Junaid Khan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Through Father Shaikh Habib Siddiqui, New Lakshmi Nagar, Mowa, Pandri (Mowa) P.S. Raipur, Tahisl And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Master Abrar Khan, Aged 01 Years, Through Next Kin- Smt. Yasmeen Khan, R/o Through Father Shaikh Habib Siddiqui, New Lakshmi Nagar, Mowa, Pandri (Mowa) P.S. Raipur, Tahisl And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aakash Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 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 set aside the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2024 in the matter titled as "Smt. Yasmeen Khan & Anr. v. Junaid Khan", Case No. 526/2023, in the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicant No.1 preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for herself and her minor son stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 26.02.2021. It was alleged that after marriage she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and the applicant along with his family members demanded ₹20,00,000/- and coerced her for fulfillment of such demand. She further alleged that the applicant is a doctor, provides services in private hospitals, works in operation theatres as a freelancer and earns more than ₹1,00,000/- per month. It was also alleged that he runs a medical shop at Mowa, Raipur, from which he earns about ₹50,000/- per month. Upon taking cognizance, the learned Family Court issued process. 3. The applicant appeared and filed his written statement stating that he is only a B.A. second year student and not a doctor. He claimed that he works as a private employee at CPL Labs collection centre and earns ₹6,000/- per month and additionally earns ₹1,500– ₹1,700/- by overtime. He also filed his bank statement and ration card to show that he belongs to the Below Poverty Line category. The applicant further stated that he was always ready to live with his wife, but she refused to reside with him and insisted that he separate from his aged parents. He alleged that false proceedings were initiated to pressurize him. 4. The non-applicants supported the allegations made in the application and contended that the applicant is concealing his real income and is capable of maintaining them. They asserted that the 3 wife has no independent source of income and the minor child is wholly dependent upon her. 5. After hearing both parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to the wife and ₹2,000/- per month to the minor son from the date of application. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, non-speaking, and without any rationale, inasmuch as it has failed to consider the documents and evidence submitted by the applicant in support of his claim regarding his actual income and financial capacity. It is submitted that the applicant has honestly disclosed before the Family Court that he is a B.A. second year student and is not a medical professional. Contrary to the allegations of the non- applicant, the applicant is not a doctor, does not provide services in private hospitals, nor does he earn a substantial income as alleged. He works as a private employee at CPL Labs collection centre, earning a monthly wage of only ₹6,000/-, and by undertaking occasional overtime he earns an additional ₹1,500/- to ₹1,700/- per month. Copies of the bank statements, salary slips, and ration card of the applicant, annexed along with the written statement, clearly establish that the applicant is a person living below the poverty line. The learned Family Court has completely ignored these materials and granted interim maintenance to the non-applicants at a rate which is practically equal to the total income of the applicant. Granting maintenance of ₹5,000/- to the wife and ₹2,000/- to the 4 minor son when the applicant himself earns only about ₹7,000/- per month, would cause serious hardship and may leave the applicant unable to meet his own basic subsistence needs. It is further submitted that the non-applicant No.1 has deliberately made false and exaggerated claims regarding the professional qualification and income of the applicant in order to pressurize him and to settle personal scores. The Family Court, however, without proper scrutiny, appears to have accepted the allegations at face value and issued the impugned order. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the applicant was always willing and ready to live a happy conjugal life, but the wife deliberately refused to reside with him, insisting on conditions that could not be met, including separation from the applicant’s aged parents. In these circumstances, in view of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the separation of the non-applicant No.1 from the applicant is without justifiable cause, and as such, she is not entitled to interim maintenance from the applicant. Hence, the impugned order suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5 Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the non- applicants are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10.Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11.OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal