Aslam Khan S/o Ramjan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Indra Aawas Mulmula v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 309 of 2025 Aslam Khan S/o Ramjan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Indra Aawas Mulmula, Police Station - Mulmula, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rukhsar Bee W/o Aslam Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Indra Aawas Mulmula, Police Station - Mulmula, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Father Najir Khan Residence - Mudapara Korba, Police Station - City Kotwali Korba, District- Korba 9111764361 (C.G) Mobile No.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Minor Kumari Hayat Fatima D/o Aslam Khan, Age About 6 Month, Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Rukhsar Bee, R/o Village- Indra Aawas Mulmula, Police Station - Mulmula, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Father Najir Khan Residence - Mudapara Korba, Police Station - City Kotwali Korba, District - Korba (C.G) Mobile No. 9111764361 ... Respondents : For Applicant For Respondents: Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma 07.03.2025 Order on Board 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant, heard finally. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Family Court, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 47/2024, whereby the learned court has 2 allowed the application in part filed by the respondents for grant of interim maintenance. 3. The case in nutshell is that the applicant and the respondent no. 1 got their marriage solemnized on 15.10.2022 as per muslim custom and rituals. Out of the said wedlock a girl child was born. It is alleged that initially the respondent no. 1 and applicant used to live together but after some time she alleged that the applicant is torturing her and demanding dowry from her. Upon which the respondent no. 1 left the home of applicant and started living with her parents in her parental home and move an application under Section 125 for interim maintenance. 4. On appreciation of the findings placed before the concerned Trial Court, the court partly allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondents by directing the present applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 2. A total of Rs. 5000/- was allowed by the learned Trial court which the applicant has to pay to the respondents on a monthly basis. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is perverse in the eye’s of law. The applicant and his family members went multiple times to bring back the respondent no. 1 and made several efforts yet the respondent no. 1 refused to come with the applicant. Applicant want to live with respondents. Moreover Applicant is unemployed, he is not that financially stable to give Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to the respondents on a monthly basis. Hence he pleads to allow the instant revision and further pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order placed on record with utmost circumspection. 3 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noteworthy that in any way it is a indisputable fact that the respondent no. 1 and the applicant are legally wedded wife and husband and respondent no. 2 is their minor daughter. It is also indisputable that the husband and wife are living separately from a considerable time. However, the applicant in the learned Trial Court has argued that the respondent no. 1 is working and is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and he has no source of livelihood and even his parents responsibility is on him. But the fact that the respondent no. 1 is earning has not been duly proved by the applicant, moreover the applicant is employed or not is also not proved by the respondents. But applicant is a healthy young man. Looking to which the trial court has allowed the maintenance in part. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is 28 year old and a young and healthy man therefore the responsibility of his wife and minor daughter is upon him and he is liable to provide monthly maintenance to the respondents. 8. So far as the question of higher maintenance allowed by the Family court is concerned, the income of the applicant has not been proved. But trial court has held that even if the income of the applicant has not been proved still he is a healthy man so, looking to the fact that as per notional income of minimum wages act the amount of Rs. 5000/- was fixed as maintenance to the respondents which is extremely meager looking to today’s inflation rate and the increasing expenditure of growing child. 9. This court while looking to the fact that the income of the applicant has not been proved till now, but this is an indisputable fact that the applicant is a healthy man and is in a condition to earn properly therefore, this court is of the considered opinion 4 that the maintenance application allowed by the family court in part is just and proper looking to the inflation rate 10. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, has not committed any illegality in partly 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, rather it is very meager, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 11. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revision being devoid of merits is dismissed and is
Decision
subsequently disposed of. 12. No order as to cost(s). alfiza sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge