1 2026:CGHC:7128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1064 of 2024 Mohd. Sanaul Haqu S/o Late Jasim Aged About 40 Years R/o Chhoti Baliya, Mirdhatoli, Post And Tahsil Baliya, P.S. - Baliya, District Begusarai, Bihar, Pin 851218 ... Applicant versus 1 - Sayista Khatun W/o Mohd. Sanual Haqu, Aged About 30 Years D/o Kamil, R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Colony, Sonawani, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Alija D/o Mohd. Sanul Haqu, Aged About 9 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Colony, Sonawani, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. . (Respondent/applicants No. 2 Is Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Sayista Khatun.) 3 - Jishan S/o Mohd. Sanaul Haqu, Aged About 7 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Colony, Sonawani, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. . (Respondent/applicants No. 3 Is Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Sayista Khatun.) 4 - Anash S/o Mohd. Sanaul Haqu, Aged About 4 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Colony, Sonawani, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. . (Respondent/applicants No. 4 Is Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Sayista Khatun.) 5 - Ku. Farhin D/o Mohd. Sanaul Haqu, Aged About 3 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Nehru Colony, Sonawani, Post Sonawani, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgava, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. . (Respondent/applicants No. 5 Is Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Sayista Khatun.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhoi, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been =led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allow this revision and to set- aside/quashed the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents =led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant, stating that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and the applicant was solemnized on 01.06.2007 in Village Sanha, Tahsil Baliya, District Begusarai (Bihar) in accordance with Muslim law, and out of the wedlock respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were born, it was further alleged that after the marriage respondent No. 1 resided with the applicant in District Begusarai but, on account of cruelty and demand of dowry, she was compelled to reside at her parental home in District Koriya; the learned Family Court, by order dated 18.05.2018, granted total maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month in favour of the respondents, whereupon the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 461/2019 before this Hon’ble Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to =le an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the Family Court for setting aside the ex parte order, and accordingly 3 such application was =led in the maintenance proceedings, thereafter, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2022 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 112/2021, against which the applicant preferred Cr.M.P. No. 744/2022, and this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 24.04.2022, set aside the earlier order dated 18.05.2018 and directed the parties to appear before the learned Family Court, which upon reconsideration passed the impugned order (Annexure A/1) directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1, Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No. 2, Rs. 1,500/- to respondent No. 3 and Rs. 1,000/- each to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, totaling Rs. 8,500/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, has directed the applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs. 8,500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,000/- to respondent No. 1, Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No. 2, Rs. 1,500/- to respondent No. 3 and Rs. 1,000/- each to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. it is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant’s income is very meagre, as evidenced by the income certi=cate issued by the Government of Bihar (Exhibit N.A.-1) showing annual income of Rs. 90,000/-, and also ignored the medical documents (Exhibit N.A.-2) indicating that the applicant was ill, yet erroneously 4 presumed him to be capable of earning, merely on the ground that the concerned revenue oEcer was not examined. It is additionally contended that the applicant earns only about Rs. 300–400 per day by selling =les, that the respondents are residing separately without suEcient cause, and that the applicant is willing to reside with his wife and children and is ready for an amicable settlement, but these aspects have not been duly considered by the learned Family Court while passing the impugned order. 4. 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 Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned and lawful order granting maintenance to the respondents in accordance with law, and after reconsideration pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court, has rightly determined the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- per month for respondent No. 1, Rs. 2,000/- for respondent No. 2, Rs. 1,500/- for respondent No. 3 and Rs. 1,000/- each for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, totaling Rs. 8,500/- per month, which reHects proper 5 application of judicial mind. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the =nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in=rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi=ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan