Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 981 of 2023 Zuber Ahmad S/o Mohammad Kalandar Aged About 32 Years R/o Street In Front Of Mona Shop, Afroz Bagh Mohdapara, Shop Address - Uttam Auto Parts, Kamal Art. Sindhi Bazar, Near Gujrati School, Mg Road, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Zeenat Jahan W/o Zuber Ahmad Aged About 29 Years R/o Vidya Nagar, Near Kalibadi Madarsa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Minor Fazilat (Daughter D/o Zuber Ahmad Aged About 4 Years R/o Vidya Nagar, Near Kalibadi Madarsa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the applicant/husband to pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the PREETI KUMARI 29.07.2025 Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:00:58 +0530 1. 2 respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 2/ daughter (total Rs. 8,000/-). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, married on 21.05.2013 as per family customs. Respondent No. 2 is their daughter, born out of the wedlock, and they also have a son named Mohammed Hussain. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance on the grounds that she was married to the applicant and they have two children. She alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant and his family began harassing her, demanded dowry, and abetted her to commit suicide. Since 17.09.2019, she has been residing separately with the daughter and has also lodged a police complaint at P.S. Mohdapara. It was further alleged that the applicant owns an auto parts shop, has a tours and travels business, and earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The respondents sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and stated that the respondent used to mistreat his family members and would often leave the house without informing anyone. He also claimed that a false complaint was filed due to the influence of the respondent’s brothers, who are in police service. He stated that respondent No. 1 works at a boutique and earns Rs. 40,000–50,000 per month, while he himself works a private job with a monthly income of only Rs. 10,000/-, and that the son is living with and dependent on him. The applicant also submitted that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any valid reason or prior notice. In her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, respondent No. 1 admitted during cross-examination that she is residing separately of her 3 own will and acknowledged that the applicant and his family take care of the children. The applicant, in his deposition before the Court, reaffirmed that he works at an auto parts shop in Raipur and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month, and that he has never operated any business. Despite these facts, the learned trial Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. The order was passed solely on the ground that the wife was living separately for sufficient reasons, without properly considering the applicant’s financial condition and the absence of any registered complaint. Given that the applicant earns a modest income and that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and contrary to the facts and legal principles, the order is liable to be set aside or modified. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is employed in a private job and has limited financial means. It did not consider that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason or prior intimation, and that she is independently earning. The Family Court also overlooked the fact that the applicant’s son is dependent on him. Furthermore, the influence of the respondent's brothers, who are in police service, has led to a false complaint being lodged against the applicant. These crucial aspects regarding the applicant’s financial condition and the conduct of the respondent were not properly considered by the learned Family Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated passed by the learned First Additional 6. 7. 4 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No. 01 is unable to maintain herself. It is an admitted fact in the case that respondent No. 01 is the wife of the applicant, and respondent No. 02 is their daughter. Upon analyzing the evidence related to respondent No. 01, it is found that she is residing separately from the applicant for valid reasons. Since respondent No. 01 and respondent No. 02 are unable to maintain themselves, the applicant is obligated to provide for their maintenance. Considering the standard of living of both parties and the present circumstances, it appears just and reasonable to award a monthly maintenance of I5,000/- to respondent No. 01 and I3,000/- to respondent No. 02, Fazilat Fatima, from the applicant. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti