1 2026:CGHC:15318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 448 of 2026 Sheikh Abdulla S/o Marhul Mohammad Siddhiqui, Aged About 45 Years R/o Masjid Road, In Front Of Hemant Jewelers Kota Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sakhat Afroj W/o Sheikh Abdulla, Aged About 41 Years D/o Mohd. Kamruddin R/o Hafij Provision Stores, Near Ravibhawan, Kota Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Hamja, D/o Sheikh Abdulla, Aged About 19 Years R/o Hafij Provision Stores, Near Ravibhawan, Kota Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. G.M. Hasan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /04/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No.1098/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 of B.N.S.S.) filed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 were married in accordance with social customs and rites, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. The applicant filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 B.N.S.S.) before the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, seeking modification/removal of the maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month awarded to the respondents. It was the case of the applicant that respondent No. 1 is a well-educated woman, engaged in tailoring work, employed at a Hyundai showroom, and also running a grocery shop, earning approximately Rs.70,000– Rs.80,000 per month. The respondents filed their reply denying all the allegations made in the application. However, the learned Family Court dismissed the applicant’s application without properly considering the material on record, which is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence, leading to the filing of the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and material available on record, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the applicant’s case and dismissed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 3 146 B.N.S.S.) without due application of mind. It is further contended that the order was passed in absence of the applicant, thereby vitiating the proceedings. He further submits that respondent No. 1, without any sufficient cause, left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately without making any effort to resume cohabitation. The applicant has always acted in good faith and made efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, whereas respondent No. 1 has allegedly treated the applicant with cruelty. He also submits that respondent No. 1 is a well-educated and financially independent woman, engaged in tailoring work, employment at a showroom, and running a grocery business, earning approximately Rs.70,000– Rs.80,000 per month, and respondent No. 2 has already attained majority. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- is excessive and liable to be modified or set-aside in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (now Section 146 of B.N.S.S.) filed by the respondents, holding that the applicant failed to establish that he is completely incapable of earning or paying the maintenance amount. The Court observed that the medical documents produced by the 4 applicant do not prove any permanent or serious illness rendering him unable to earn his livelihood. It was further noted that similar grounds had already been considered and rejected earlier, and no new substantial material was brought on record. The Court also found that the applicant failed to produce any reliable evidence to substantiate his claim regarding the independent income of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Family Court held that the applicant is not entitled to exemption from payment of maintenance and dismissed the application. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil