1 2026:CGHC:19596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 571 of 2026 Shabana Khatun W/o Muzakkir Khan Aged About 35 Years Muslim, R/o Village Bodokachhar, P.S. And Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Muzakkir Khan (Wrongly Mentioned In Muzakker Khan As Per Impugned Order) S/o Sajeer Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Tokopara, P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (i) Call for the records of Case No. Misc. Cr.Case No. 49/2025 from the Circuit Family Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.); (ii) Direct the respondent to produce documentary proof of his income including RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 bank statements, and any other relevant documents before this Hon'ble Court for proper determination of his actual income and financial capacity; (iii) Modify/enhance the impugned final order dated 25/02/2026 in the matter titled "Shabana Khatun Versus Mujakkir Khan" bearing Misc. Cr.case No. 49/2025, whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 144 BNSS was partly allowed, and enhance the finally awarded maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from the date of application i.e. 16.09.2025, after proper determination of the respondent's actual income; (iv) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist/applicant, Shabana Khatun, is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, Mujakkir Khan, and their Nikah was solemnized on 12.01.2010 at Village Tokopara in accordance with Muslim law and customs, after which they resided together as husband and wife for about five years. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely Nadeem Khan, was born on 15.10.2010, who unfortunately expired at the age of 12 years. It is the case of the revisionist that thereafter the respondent 3 developed an illicit relationship with one Bholi Bhagat, on account of which he started subjecting the revisionist to cruelty, physical assault, and neglect, and ultimately abandoned her at her parental home at Village Bodokachhar without providing any financial support or basic necessities, and has since completely neglected and refused to maintain her, while allegedly contracting another Nikah with the said Bholi Bhagat and residing with her. It is further submitted that the revisionist, having no independent source of income, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Shrunkhala Kutumb Nyayalaya (Circuit Family Court), Kunkuri, on 16.09.2025, registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 49/2025, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, contending that the respondent is running a tractor repair shop at Sitapur earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month and also earning Rs.10,000/- per month as Ward Panch, thereby having a total monthly income of about Rs.40,000/-. However, the respondent, in his reply, denied the said income and falsely claimed himself to be a labourer without producing any documentary evidence in support thereof. It is further the case of the revisionist that the learned trial court, without properly appreciating the material on record and without directing the respondent to produce income proof, arbitrarily assumed his income to be Rs.9,000/- per month and vide impugned order dated 25.02.2026 partly allowed the application by awarding a meagre sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance, which is wholly inadequate and disproportionate even on the assumed income. 4 Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present criminal revision seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law, inasmuch as the learned court has gravely erred in assessing the income of the respondent at merely Rs.9,000/- per month solely on the basis of his bald, self-serving and unsubstantiated statement that he is a labourer, without directing him to produce any documentary evidence such as bank statements, income tax returns or proof of earnings, despite the burden being upon the respondent to disclose his true income. It is further submitted that the learned court failed to properly appreciate the specific pleadings and evidence of the revisionist that the respondent is running a tractor repair shop at Sitapur and is also working as a Ward Panch, earning substantially more, and yet accepted the respondent’s bare denial without scrutiny. He also submits that even assuming the income of Rs.9,000/- per month, the award of Rs.1,500/- as maintenance is grossly inadequate and disproportionate, and does not meet even the basic subsistence needs of the revisionist, who has been abandoned, subjected to cruelty, denied medical care, and left without any means of livelihood. It is further contended that under Muslim Personal Law as well as statutory provisions under Section 144 BNSS, the respondent is under an absolute obligation to maintain his wife, which he has failed to discharge. Learned counsel 5 also submits that the learned court has ignored the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana & Anr. and Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., wherein it has been held that a Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance and that proper assessment of income based on affidavits and material evidence is mandatory. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from lack of cogent reasoning, as no justification has been assigned for accepting the respondent’s version, arbitrarily fixing his income, and awarding a meagre sum which is less than one-sixth of the assumed income. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be suitably modified and the maintenance amount be enhanced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has acted within the bounds of law and has passed a well-reasoned and justified order. The learned court, after affording due opportunity to both parties and evaluating their respective pleadings and evidence, has rightly assessed the income of the respondent on the basis of the material placed before it, particularly in the absence of any cogent documentary proof produced by the revisionist to substantiate her claim regarding the higher income of the respondent. The learned Family Court has exercised its judicial discretion prudently in determining the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and has awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, keeping in view the overall facts, 6 circumstances, and financial capacity as assessed on record. It cannot be said that the learned court acted arbitrarily or without application of mind, rather the impugned order reflects due consideration of the submissions and evidence adduced by both sides. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan