1 CGHC010032022025 2026:CGHC:33003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 117 of 2025 Mo. Miraj Khan S/o Abdul Safi, Aged About 36 Years, At Bhrigu Ward, Vishnoi Gali, Bhatapara City, BalodaBazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rashmin Bano, W/o Mo. Miraj Khan, Aged About 30 Years, At Subhash Nagar, Maudha Para, Raipur, C.G. 2. Mo. Aasim S/o Mo. Miraj Khan, Aged About 4 Years, At Subhash Nagar, Maudha Para, Raipur, C.G. (Through Next To Kin Mother Rashmin Bano) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) in Case No. 585/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has passed the interim order in favour of the respondents whereby respondent No. 1 has been awarded 10,000/- per month whereas interim maintenance for respondent No. 2 has been allowed to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 2. On IA No. 02 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in payment of process fee. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is rejected. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.31 15:10:30 +0530 2 4. The facts, in brief, is that after nearly six years of the solemnization of the marriage, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent- wife") filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance. In the said application, she stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.11.2018 and that a son, Respondent No. 2, was born out of the said wedlock. She further alleged that since the inception of the marriage, she had been subjected to cruelty on account of demand for dowry. However, no cogent or substantial document in support of the said allegations was produced by the respondent-wife to prima facie satisfy the Court. Upon taking cognizance of the application, the learned Trial Court issued notice to the applicant. In compliance thereof, the applicant appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed a detailed reply specifically stating that after the solemnization of the marriage, he made all necessary arrangements for the education of the respondent-wife, pursuant to which she completed her LL.B. course as a regular student. It was further averred that the petitioner had requested the respondent-wife to pursue her studies at Balod Bazar College, which is situated near their matrimonial home; however, she voluntarily opted to take admission in a college at Raipur, which is her parental town. She completed her LL.B. course as a regular student from Raipur and used to visit her parental home on a daily basis. Therefore, the allegations of ill-treatment or dowry-related harassment were wholly baseless. The applicant further averred in his reply that, owing to the conduct and ill-treatment meted out by the respondent-wife, he was compelled to live separately from his own family. His aged parents and other family members were forced to vacate their own house, and the applicant was constrained to reside at the parental home of the respondent-wife. It was also specifically pleaded that whenever the 3 applicant refused to accede to the unreasonable demands of the respondent-wife, she threatened to implicate him and his family members in a false dowry case. Due to such threats, the applicant resided for some time at the parental home of the respondent-wife. However, owing to severe employment-related difficulties, he subsequently returned to his native place. The applicant also pleaded that, with the sole intention of compelling him to live separately from his family and permanently reside at her parental home, the respondent-wife lodged a false complaint alleging dowry harassment against him and falsely implicated his entire family, including his aged parents. It was further submitted that the respondent-wife had deliberately exaggerated the petitioner's income, whereas, in reality, he was employed as a private employee earning only Rs.6,300/- per month. The applicant further averred that the respondent-wife was practicing as an advocate at Raipur and was earning a substantial income from her profession. However, she deliberately concealed her actual earnings by not producing any documentary evidence relating to her income, including her bank account details. It was also specifically pleaded that both the applicant and the respondent-wife belonged to a Below Poverty Line (BPL) family. In support of the said contention, the applicant placed on record a copy of the ration card issued in the name of the respondent-wife, who, in terms of the Government ration policy, is shown as the head of the family. From the reply as well as the documents produced by the applicant, it was evident that the financial condition of the family comprising the applicant and the respondent-wife was extremely poor. Despite the aforesaid material placed on record, the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the pleadings and documents submitted by the applicant and without dealing with the specific grounds raised in his reply, passed the impugned 4 order. The learned Trial Court arrived at its conclusions without any cogent evidence or even prima-facie material in support thereof. It is respectfully submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court has not even considered or discussed the applicant's income while determining the maintenance. Consequently, the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the material available on record, and unsustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the documents available on record, passed the impugned order of maintenance in violation of the settled principles of law, thereby extending the benefit to the respondent-wife despite the absence of cogent evidence. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife alleged assault by the applicant upon her and the other respondents without producing any substantive evidence in support of such allegations. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized when both were minors and that they led a harmonious marital life, during which respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 were born. The Court also overlooked that false allegations had been levelled against the applicant's sisters, who are married and residing at their respective matrimonial homes. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that, at the insistence of the respondent-wife, the applicant left his aged parents and started residing with her at Raipur in the year 2010. Their cordial relationship is evident from the fact that their fourth child was born during their stay at Raipur. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the applicant's specific plea that the respondent-wife was running a business and had deliberately withheld her bank statements and Income Tax Returns to conceal her actual income. The learned Trial Court failed to 5 appreciate that the provisions of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are intended to provide maintenance and not to punish the husband. The impugned order, being excessive and arbitrary, is therefore unsustainable in law. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife's allegation that the petitioner was opposed to the education of his daughters is belied by the fact that the eldest daughter was sent to Kota, Rajasthan, for NEET preparation and the younger daughter has been studying in a reputed private school at Raipur. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the documents produced by the applicant demonstrating that the respondent-wife was not adequately ensuring the education of the children and was not regularly sending them to their educational institutions. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the applicant's plea that the respondent-wife was maintaining an illicit relationship with one Akash Ranglani and had voluntarily deserted the applicant during his illness to continue such relationship. The petitioner had also produced call recordings in support of this plea, which were not duly considered. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had disclosed his income and expenditure in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had produced his bank statements and Income Tax Returns, showing his annual income to be only Rs.2,55,000/-. In contrast, the respondent-wife's Income Tax Returns reflected an income more than twice that of the applicant and disclosed her involvement in the sale and purchase of immovable properties, supported by documentary evidence produced by the applicant. The learned Trial Court failed to correctly appreciate the provisions of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which do not entitle major children to maintenance under the said provision and disentitle a wife living in 6 adultery from claiming maintenance. The impugned order is therefore contrary to law. The learned Trial Court, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, accepted the bald and unsubstantiated allegations of the respondent-wife and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The impugned order is therefore arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti