1 2026:CGHC:8140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1232 of 2024 Anwar Hussain S/o Late Iftekhar Hussain Aged About 43 Years R/o Quarter No. 5-B, Street No. 24, Sector- 1, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgar ... Applicant versus 1. Firdaus Anjum W/o Anwar Hussain Aged About 37 Years R/o Ismile Nandai Para, Near Kuan Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Amrin Hussain S/o Anwar Hussain Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian And Mother Firdaus Anjum W/o Anwar Hussain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ismile Nandai Para, Near Kuan Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 .02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant. 2. I.A. No. 01/2024, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 06 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 10:27:15 +0530 2 the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.80/2022 whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the husband/applicant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1/wife No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- to non-applicant No.2/son. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance. In the said application, it was stated that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 07.09.2012, and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 was born. It was alleged that the applicant failed to properly maintain the non- applicants and did not make adequate arrangements for their daily needs and food. Owing to such neglect, non-applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home in July 2014. She thereafter lodged a complaint before the Mahila Cell, which initiated counselling proceedings; however, the applicant did not appear before the Mahila Cell, and therefore no compromise could be arrived at. It was further stated that non-applicant No. 1, along with her daughter, went to the applicant’s house for restitution of conjugal rights, but the applicant refused to keep them. Consequently, she returned to her parental home and has been residing there since October 2019. It was also alleged that the applicant has sufficient sources of income, but despite this, he has not paid any amount towards the maintenance of the non-applicants. Hence, the application for grant of maintenance was filed. 3 6. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application. He submitted that non-applicant No. 1 is residing separately without any reasonable cause and that he never subjected her to cruelty. It was further contended that non-applicant No. 1 was unwilling to live with the applicant and used to frequently visit her parental home without informing him. The applicant also stated that non-applicant No. 1 has sufficient means of income, whereas he himself is not gainfully employed and is responsible for maintaining his old and ailing parents. Therefore, since non-applicant No. 1 is living separately without sufficient cause, the non-applicants are not entitled to any maintenance. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 25.07.2024, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 from the date of the application, i.e., 02.02.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. That the learned Family Court has erred in law in directing payment of maintenance to the non-applicants from the date of the application, without recording sufficient reasons for the same. That the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that non- applicant No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home in the year 2014 and has not returned despite several efforts made by the applicant to resume cohabitation. That the learned Family Court failed to consider that non- applicant No. 1 was unwilling to reside in the joint family of the applicant and persistently pressurized him to live separately. As the applicant was not agreeable to living separately from his family, non-applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home of her own accord and without sufficient cause in 4 the year 2014. That the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that non-applicant No. 1 is residing separately at her parental home without any reasonable or sufficient cause, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. That the learned Family Court further failed to consider that non-applicant No. 1 has sufficient independent sources of income and is capable of maintaining herself, and hence is not entitled to maintenance. That the learned Family Court did not properly appreciate that the applicant is unemployed and has no permanent source of income. The applicant is also suffering from a medical condition involving recurrent fits and is undergoing regular treatment, which further restricts his earning capacity. That the learned Family Court failed to consider that no complaint or report regarding alleged cruelty or harassment was ever lodged by non-applicant No. 1 against the applicant. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that non-applicant No.1 has not produced any documents or detailed particulars to substantiate the claim that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month is required for her own maintenance and for the maintenance of non- applicant No. 2 under different heads of expenses. As regards the income of the applicant, no documentary proof has been placed on record. However, it cannot be denied that, in the present time, even an unskilled labourer earns approximately Rs. 10,600/- per month. Therefore, the estimated monthly income of the applicant is assessed at Rs. 10,600/-. While determining the amount of maintenance, considering primarily the 5 standard of living of the applicant, his income, the needs and health of the non-applicants, and the educational requirements of the child, it would be just and proper to award maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to non- pplicant No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to non-applicant No. 2/son. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 11. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti