1 - Suhail Ahmed Siddiquee S/o Shri Hazi Salauddin Aged About 45 Years R/o v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 107 of 2025 1 - Suhail Ahmed Siddiquee S/o Shri Hazi Salauddin Aged About 45 Years R/o Permanent Address At Village Nagpur, M.C.B. District- M.C.B. (C.G.). At Present Qtr. No. A/12, Jainab Park, Opposite Ibrahim Bavani, I.T.I. Near Kamla Nagar, Ajwa Road, District Badodara, (Gujarat) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Faatima Bibi @ Jaibunnisha W/o Shri Suhail Ahmed Siddiquee Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Nagpur, Chirmiri Road, Behind N.H. 43, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Manendragarh, (C.G.) M.C.B. District 2 - Sageel S/o Suhail Ahmed Aged About 17 Years (Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Resp. No.1) R/o Village Nagpur, Chirmiri Road, Behind N.H. 43, Police Station Podi, Tahsil (C.G.) Manendragarh, District M.C.B. 3 - Sayaba D/o Suhail Ahmed Aged About 16 Years (Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Resp. No. 1) R/o Village Nagpur, Chirmiri Road, Behind N.H. 43, Police Station Podi, Tahsil (C.G.) Manendragarh, District M.C.B. 4 - Aariba D/o Suhai Ahmed Aged About 13 Years (Through Legal Guardian Of Mother Resp. No. 1) R/o Village Nagpur, Chirmiri Road, Behind N.H. 43, Police Station Podi, Tahsil Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 1994) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the court of learned 2 Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya, now M.C.B, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal M.C.C. no. 152/2023. 2. The case in nutshell is that the present applicant got married to respondent no. 1 on 16.04.1999 as per the Muslim rituals and customs. Out of the said wedlock two children were born, respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3. The applicant is a contractor in Gujarat and from there he used to send money to respondent no. 1 for her maintenance and even used to visit Nagpur from time to time to meet them. However, from past few years applicant stopped sending maintenance money. It is alleged that the applicant has beaten up respondent no. 1 along with his father. On reporting this, the police had advised respondent no. 1 to go to court. The respondent no. 1 is a house wife and has no means of living except the maintenance which the applicant used to send her. Both the children has grown up and are receiving higher eduction which demands higher amount of fees. Moreover the respondent no. 1 has alleged that the applicant got married to some other woman in Gujarat and is residing peacefully there. It is also stated by the respondent no. 1 that applicant is having 3 acres of agricultural land and two houses from which he is getting a rent of Rs. 3500/-. From agricultural work he used to get around one lakh rupees per annum. He has also bought some houses in Gujarat which he used to rent them and earn money from the same. The applicant has also started selling the houses of Nagpur. 3. On appreciation of the findings placed before the concerned Trial Court, the court allowed the maintenance application of the respondents by directing the present applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 3500/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent no. 3 and 4. However, it was observed by the Trial Court that respondent no. 2 has attained the age of 19 3 which is major, therefore, applicant is not bound to take the responsibility of paying any maintenance towards him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District koriya, now M.C.B. Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 19.11.2024 is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and stated that the monthly income of the applicant is only Rs. 15,000/- and he is a labour by profession. He does not possesses three acres of land. He has only two lands in Nagpur bearing Khasra no. 251/7 measuring 0.29 hectares and Khasra No. 217/1 measuring 0.351 hectares. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the respondent no. 1’s father had purchased a land bearing Khasra No. 253/11 in village Semra in the name of respondent no. 1 and constructed a house in it and handed it over to the applicant. Applicant has given the old house on rent for a sum of Rs. 2500/- since shifting earlier. And on the remaining land she has made a shed and grows vegetables in it and sells it, which gives an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She also has tenants in the house located in Nagpur, from which she is earning Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7000/-. Hence pleaded to allow the instant revision and to set aside or reduce the impugned order dated 19.11.2024, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused all the available documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noteworthy that in any way, no document has been presented regarding the purchase of land and receiving of rent from the house of the respondent no. 1. No document has been submitted showing the possession of land by the respondent no. 4 1, nor any document has been presented regarding having cows, receiving ration through ration card and receiving one thousand rupees from Mahtari Bandhan Yojana. No evidence has been shown that shows that the respondent no. 1 is having some source of income. Hence it cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 is earning by some or the other means. Applicant has not submitted any document regarding sale of the house in Barbaspur. He stated that he has some ancestral land in Jharkhand, agricultural land in Nagpur and his brother in law Shaukat Ali does agricultural work on the land in Nagpur and has houses in Nagpur and Gujarat. Thus the applicant seems to be a person who is having sufficient sources of income. Moreover the applicant got married to some other woman namely Mehrun Khatun and is having children from her too and left respondent no. 1 along with three children at their own verge to survive. 8. So far as the question of responsibility of the respondents is concerned, it is but obvious that respondent no. 1/wife, respondent no. 3 and 4/children are surely entitled to receive the maintenance, as they are receiving education and are growing children hence they need money in every sphere of their life. So far as respondent no. 2, who is also the child of applicant (major son through heirs) is not entitled to receive any amount under the head of maintenance as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 9. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh District Koriya, Now M.C.B. Chhattisgarh has not committed any illegality in allowing the maintenance application of respondents. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 5 10. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revisions being devoid of merits is dismissed and is
Decision
subsequently disposed of. 11. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza