Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 743 of 2022 Fahim Ahmed Siddiqi S/o Farid Ahmed Siddiqi Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o Anand Rao Ghodewar, Vindhwashini Nagar, Ward No. 20, Nayak Bandha, Gram Panchayat Rajim Road, Abhanpur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant 1. Nikhat Khan W/o Fahim Ahmed Siddiqi Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 180, Near Sukhram Product, Panch Rasta, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Maysha Fatima D/o Fahim Ahmed Siddiqi Aged About 2 Months,
Legal Reasoning
warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek
Arguments
Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Nikhat Khan, R/o House No. 180, Near Sukhram Product, Panch Rasta, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.24 17:30:10 +0530 For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2025 Order on Board 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent when the case is called out 2 of hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to reduce the maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial Court and may kindly be please to direct the trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the Misc. Criminal Case No. 7j8/2022, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 took place on 21.10.2020 according to Muslim rituals and customs. After the marriage, non-applicant No.1 started residing at her matrimonial home. Out of their wedlock, respondent No. 02 was born. The respondent Non 01 filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with an application for interim maintenance, stating that soon after the marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruel treatment for dowry demands. She further stated that the applicant dropped her at her parental home while she was pregnant on 02.03.2021. She alleged that when she informed the applicant and his family members about the birth of respondent No. 02, they expressed disappointment, saying they wanted a male child, and therefore, told her to remain at her parental home. Respondent No. 01 also made allegations regarding the applicant’s 3 illicit relationship with one Neha Thakur. She further submitted that the applicant is the owner of a poultry farm from which he earns an income of Rs. 70,000/- per month, and therefore, she is entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- as interim maintenance. The copy of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the application for interim maintenance are annexed herewith. After service of notice, the applicant appeared and refuted the claims made in the application. The applicant categorically stated that respondent No. 01 subjected him and his family members to cruelty and also threatened to falsely implicate them in a criminal case. He further stated that respondent No. 01 deserted him without any sufÏcient cause or reason, and that she always insisted that he live separately from his aged parents. It was also submitted that respondent No. 01 herself had expressed a desire to reside at her parental home during pregnancy to receive proper care. The applicant further stated that he is employed at a chicken corner doing chicken-cutting work, earning only Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. He also bears the responsibility of looking after his aged parents and managing a rented chicken shop. Copies of the reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the reply to the application for interim maintenance are annexed herewith as Annexures A-4 and A-5. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both parties and perusing the documents placed on record, awarded Rs. 4,000/- to the respondent No. 01 and Rs. 3,000/- to respondent No. 02, totaling Rs. 7,000/-. However, the learned trial Court erred in ignoring the 4 fact that respondent No. 01 had deserted the applicant without any sufÏcient cause or reason. The Court also erred in assessing the applicant’s income and fixing the said maintenance amount. Furthermore, the trial Court failed to consider that the applicant is also responsible for taking care of his aged parents. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is illegal, improper, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court erred in holding that respondent No. 01 (wife) is living separately without any sufÏcient reason, ignoring the averments regarding the physical and mental cruelty committed against her. He submits that the learned trial Court erred in not holding that respondent No.1 (wife) has deserted the company of the applicant of her own will. He also submits that the learned trial Court erred in deciding the quantum of maintenance for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, which is on the higher side and was fixed without properly considering the income of the husband. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant is also taking care of his aged parents. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has an income of only about Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month, and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, a maintenance amount of 25% of the husband’s income would be just and proper. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents available on record. For the reasons stated above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and 5 deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side