1 2026:CGHC:5820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 574 of 2024 Salim Khan S/o Usman Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Parkod, P.S. Khariyarroad (Jonk), District Nuapada (Orrisa) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Mumtaj Nisha W/o Salim Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Nawagaon, P.S. And Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Kumari Naziya Khan D/o Salim Khan Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Nawagaon, P.S. And Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:24:09 +0530 2 Revision Petition and Impugned Order Dated 08.02.2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 128/2023, in the case of "Smt. Mumtaz Nisha & Another V/s. Salim Khan" may kindly be set- aside and quashed And the Application filed by Respondents for grant of maintenance U/s. 125 of CrPC may kindly be dismissed throughout along with the cost in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and respondent No. 2 is their daughter. The applicant and respondent No. 1 solemnized their marriage on 06.04.1996 at Village Nawagaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.), as per Muslim rites, rituals, and customs. The wife/respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. along with her daughter (Respondent No. 2) on the allegation that the husband/Applicant has been involved in gambling and betting since his early age. It was alleged that he used to mortgage his property for gambling and betting purposes and, with the passage of time, lost all his property. It was further alleged that he used to pressurize his wife to bring money from her parental home and also demanded partition from her family members, and thereafter deserted the wife/respondent No. 1. It was further alleged that when the said incidents were communicated to the father of respondent No. 1, he sold his property and somehow arranged an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which was given to the husband; however, the said amount was never returned. A meeting was also convened before the Muslim Jamaat at Bagbahra when the husband was not taking due care of the respondents, but no resolution could be arrived at. It was further alleged that at present the 3 husband has performed a second marriage and is engaged in running businesses relating to slippers and a chicken centre in the village, from which he is earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. 4. Hence, the wife and daughter filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month, stating that the husband/father has deserted them, they are unable to maintain themselves, and the husband is earning a handsome income from the aforesaid businesses. 5. The Applicant/husband appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his objection, stating therein that the wife used to frequently visit her parental home and that despite repeated efforts, she was reluctant to return to the matrimonial home. It was stated that she disowned him in the year 2011 and since then has been residing at her parental home. The husband further stated that he had approached Police Station Bagbahra, but the wife refused to return. It was also stated that the father of respondent No. 1 frequently used to call meetings of the Jamaat on trivial issues. In one such meeting, the wife/Respondent No. 1 pronounced divorce as per Muslim rites, rituals, and customs and executed a Talaqnama on 19.02.2023, which was exhibited as Ex. NA/2. It was further stated in the Talaqnama that she was not willing to reside with her husband and that the husband was free to live as per his own wishes. It was also contended that she deliberately deserted him after giving divorce. The husband further stated that he is a labourer and has the responsibility of maintaining his second wife, and that he earns hardly Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. It was also stated that the family of the wife is financially well settled. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. The wife, Smt. Mumtaz Nisha, appeared as Applicant Witness No. 1 and 4 marked documents as Ex. A-1, the photocopy whereof was marked as Ex. A-1C. Akbar Ali appeared as Applicant Witness No. 2. The husband, Salim Khan, appeared as Non-Applicant Witness No. 1 and marked documents as Ex. NA-1 and Ex. NA-2. 7. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, after perusing the evidence available on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Respondent No. 1/wife; however, the claim of maintenance for Respondent No. 2/daughter was dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Learned Family Court has committed material irregularity coupled with illegality while passing the impugned order. Learned Family Court has failed to consider the admissions made by the wife/Respondent No. 1, which were crucial and ought to have been considered while passing the impugned order. He further submits that learned Family Court has mechanically shifted the burden of proof upon the husband, which is contrary to the principles laid down under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act”). Learned Family Court, in a mechanical manner, partly allowed the application filed by the wife and passed the impugned order without appreciating that the husband is a labourer aged about 50 years and has the responsibility of maintaining his second wife as well. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the admissions made by the wife in her cross-examination, wherein she categorically admitted that she never lodged any complaint regarding the allegations made in her pleadings. She further admitted that when she left her husband, he had filed an application dated 04.08.2011 before Police Station Bagbahra. She also admitted that when the husband went 5 to take her and the daughter back, she deliberately refused to accompany him. She further admitted that the husband does not own any agricultural land or property. He further submits that learned Family Court has completely ignored the mandate of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. When the wife herself admitted that she is residing separately without sufÏcient cause, the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. became infructuous and its continuance amounts to abuse of the process of law. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the Court cannot grant maintenance contrary to the statutory mandate. Unless and until the wife satisfies the Court that she has sufÏcient reason to live separately, maintenance cannot be granted. Learned Family Court, without any rhyme or reason, concluded that the wife was living separately with sufÏcient cause and that it was the husband who left her at the parental home, and yet proceeded to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Learned Family Court has drawn an erroneous inference of settled law by holding that absence of effective cross-examination on a particular point amounts to admission, which is contrary to law. The learned Family Court has relied upon the pleadings of the wife rather than her admissions made during cross-examination and the documentary evidence, including Ex. NA/2 (Talaqnama), ignoring the settled principle that pleadings without proof do not constitute evidence. The impugned order has been passed on conjectures and surmises and is therefore unsustainable in law. The inconsistent pleas advanced by the wife have been completely overlooked, and the core issue as well as the legislative intent of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. have not been addressed in the impugned order. He further submits that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another, reported 6 in (2021) 2 SCC 324, have been completely overlooked and not followed in their true letter and spirit. The learned Family Court has erroneously appreciated destructive pleas and failed to properly consider the material admissions on record. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 128/2023. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1. However, the claim for maintenance on behalf of respondent No. 2 was rejected, as the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to grant the same. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek