1 2026:CGHC:8099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 513 of 2024 Kalmaudin Khan S/o Late Manjar Khan, Aged About 58 Years Occupation- S.E.C.L. Employee, R/o Khuttanpara, Village- Tengni, Post-Girjapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Patna, District Korea (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Nasima Begum W/o Kalmaudin Khan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Gram Panchayat- Pandopara, Main Road, Near Raja Sound, Police Station And Tehsil - Patna, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sashwat Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhoi Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sashwat Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Kumar Bhoi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition setting aside the impugned order dated 28/02/2024 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.16 11:16:15 +0530 2 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent 9led an application for maintenance against the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming an amount of Rs. 75,000/- per month as maintenance, which was registered as Cr.M.J.C. No. 14/2022. In her application, the respondent made various allegations against the applicant, which have been speci9cally denied by the applicant. The applicant categorically stated that the respondent is a quarrelsome woman who habitually troubles him under the in@uence of her maternal family members. The applicant submitted that he has provided proper maintenance, nutrition, and education to his children. The marriages of the capable children have already been solemnized, and necessary resources were provided to the remaining children. However, under the in@uence of the respondent, the sons have grown up, left their studies, and neither engage in any job nor business; rather, they have fallen into bad habits. When the applicant objected to their conduct, they allegedly started 9ghting, quarreling, and assaulting him, for which he lodged complaints. It was further stated that even today, the respondent is receiving all expenses and maintenance from the applicant. On the instigation of the respondent, the sons allegedly assaulted the applicant and forced him to sign an aDdavit stating that he would give 75% of his income to the respondent. Due to fear, he has been living separately. The applicant further submitted that he remarried for his care and support, and his second wife is presently residing with him. 4. The applicant also stated that due to physical weakness and a fracture in his leg, he is unable to perform full duty and is able to work only 10–15 days in a month, earning a salary of approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 3 25,000/- per month. It was further submitted that the agricultural land mentioned by the respondent is in her possession along with the sons, and they earn approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per year from agricultural activities without providing any share to the applicant. It was also stated that a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card exists in the name of the respondent. The applicant contended that the application has been 9led on the basis of false and fabricated facts and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 5. The learned Family Court framed the issues and recorded the statements of the respondent/wife and her son, PW-02 Mobeen Khan, in support of her application. The applicant/husband examined himself and DW-02 Madan Kol in his defence. The learned Court recorded a 9nding that the respondent is a 55-year-old woman. It was noted that 9ve children were born out of the wedlock, all of whom have attained majority, and three of them are married, while the marriage of two sons is yet to be solemnized. The learned Court observed that since all the children have attained majority, their maintenance is no longer the legal responsibility of the applicant; however, being the father of two unmarried sons, he has a moral responsibility towards their marriage. 6. Considering all the above circumstances, and further considering that the applicant is also responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of his second wife and child, and that due to a fracture in his leg he is unable to work for the entire month, the learned Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective. Learned Family Court committed an illegality in not 4 considering the fact that the applicant is not receiving his full salary, as he is able to work only 10 to 15 days in a month due to his old age and physical condition. He submits that learned Family Court erred in not considering the fact that the applicant is also responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of his second wife and children, and that due to a fracture in his leg, he is unable to perform duty for the entire month. Learned Family Court further erred in not considering that the applicant is a senior citizen and incurs substantial medical expenses; moreover, due to the fracture in his leg, he is unable to discharge his duties for the full month. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the agricultural land of the applicant is in possession of the respondent and her sons, who are earning approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum from agricultural activities without providing any share to the applicant. The respondent is residing separately from the applicant without any reasonable cause. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. 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 9led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 12000/- to the respondent. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certi9ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek