Faizal S/o Jameel Usmani Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. H-2b, Irrigation Colony v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 317 of 2025 Faizal S/o Jameel Usmani Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. H-2b, Irrigation Colony, P.S.- Darri, District- Korba (C.G.) versus 1 - Mrs. Farheen Shaba W/o Faizal Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 35, Jai Stambh Chowk, Masjidpara, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant 2 - Fatima D/o Faizal Aged About 6 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother (Non- Applicant No.1) R/o Ward No. 35, Jai Stambh Chowk, Masjidpara, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents : For Applicant For Respondents:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sholahdi Basychi, 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 04.02.2025 passed by the Family Court Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 49 of 2023(Annexure A/1) wherein the learned court has partially allowed the maintenance application. 2 3. The case in nutshell is that present applicant and the respondent no. 1 got married on 05.02.2021 as per the Muslim Customs and out of the said wedlock a daughter/respondent no. 2 was born. As per the allegation of respondent no. 1, the applicant after four- five days of marriage started beating her and made unnecessary dowry demands. Even it has been alleged by respondent no. 1 that the applicant was having an extra marital affair with some another woman and when she came to know about this and asked to the applicant, the applicant beat her and was discarded from the house. Being aggrieved and hopeless she went to her parents home. She also alleged that when she was three months pregnant, the applicant at time also beat her. The applicant neither came to meet her daughter when she was born nor he took the responsibility of paying the hospital charges. 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. 5,000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3500/- to respondent no. 2. A total of Rs. 8,500/- 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. It is most humbly submitted that the applicant earns a salary of Rs. 12,118/- only per month by working as a computer operator. The salary information as provided by the Light machinery Tubewell and gate Sub Division, Korba Chhattisgarh is annexed as Annexure A/4. The learned court ought to have appreciated that the applicant has made efforts to bring back the respondent no. 1 to reside with him and 3 6. 7. has also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before the family court, Katghora as case no. 142A/2022. Hence he pleads to allow the instant revision and further pleased to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order placed on record with utmost circumspection. 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 due to the fact that the husband was having an extra marital affair with some other lady and when the wife came to know about that and when she asked the same, as alleged husband discarded him from his house. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 1 has no source of earning and the respondent no. 2 is a six year old child whose responsibility is solely on the shoulders of the respondent no. 1. Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the partial maintenance awarded by the trial court is not perverse and illegal in the eyes of this court. 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 respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3,500/- to respondent no. 2 which is extremely meager looking to today’s inflation rate and the increasing expenditure of growing child. 4 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 more than as the maintenance awarded by the trial court properly therefore, this court is of the considered opinion 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