Mohammad Mushtaq Ahmed S/o Late Mohammad Khurshid Ansari Aged About 37 Years R/o Village v. 1 - Roshan Aara W/o Mushtaq Ahmed Aged About 32 Years R/o Navagarh, P.S
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:37932 NAFR CRR No. 942 of 2025 Mohammad Mushtaq Ahmed S/o Late Mohammad Khurshid Ansari Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Navagarh Near Joda Talab, Ambikapur District- Surguja ( C.G. ). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Roshan Aara W/o Mushtaq Ahmed Aged About 32 Years R/o Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District- Surguja ( C.G. ). 2 - Mohammad Ayamn S/o Mushtaq Ahmed Aged About 10 Years Through Their Guardian, Mother Roshan Aara, W/o Mushtaq Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years ) R/o Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District- Surguja ( C.G. ). 3 - Mohammad Faizan S/o Mushtaq Ahmed Aged About 9 Years Through Their Guardian, Mother Roshan Aara, W/o Mushtaq Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years ) R/o Navagarh, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur District- Surguja ( C.G. ). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.08.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Learned Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 121/2024 may kindly be set aside to the extent it grants maintenance to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and such other relief(s) may be granted as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 has stated in her application that she married with the applicant in the year 2006, at Village Hariharganj, Rasulbagh, District Aurangabad Bihar and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 and 3 were born. Currently, they are living separately. The applicant began harassing and troubling her after the marriage but despite the abuse, she continued to live with him. However, in the year 2020, the applicant physically assaulted her and drove her out of the house. After which a complaint regarding this incident was lodged by the non-applicant No. 1 at Police Station and the Women's Police Station in Ambikapur. However, no action was taken on the said complaint. Despite this, the non-applicant No. 1 continued to tolerate the applicant's abuse in the hope that he might change his behavior. Unfortunately, there was no improvement, nor any attempt was made by the applicant to bring her back. She further stated that about two years ago, the applicant again assaulted her and expelled her from the house. Since then, she has been living at her brother's residence. She further stated that the applicant is a man of considerable means. He runs a battery sales shop and earns 3 income of Rs. 60,000/-per month. Despite having sufÏcient means, he has failed in his legal and moral duty to maintain the non- applicants. Due to lack of financial hardships, the applicant along with her sons filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, sought maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant. 3. The applicant filed his reply in which he denied all other material allegations and explained that neither he nor his family members ever harassed or troubled non-applicant No. 1. Instead, it is non- applicant No. 1 who, without any justifiable reason, has been residing at her parental house and has refused to live with the applicant. The applicant further stated that non-applicant No. 1 has been mentally harassing the applicant by insisting that she would not return unless the applicant would pay her ₹1,50,000/-. The applicant also submitted that he had made several efforts to bring the non-applicant No.1 back to live with him and that multiple meetings which were held in the Panchayat in this regard. Non- applicant No. 1 is not properly taking care of the children. She shows no affection or emotional attachment toward the applicant and her only interest lies in money. Therefore, she is demanding ₹1,50,000/- from him. The applicant further submitted that non- applicant No. 1 earns a monthly income of approximately 10,000/- through tailoring work and on the other hand, the applicant has no fixed source of income and he merely works as an employee at a battery shop, earning only ₹3,000/- per month and prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the non-applicant No.1. 4 4. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, vide its impugned order dated 25.04.2025, has partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month each in favor of non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3, (total 5000/-) along with litigation costs whereby rejected the maintenance claim with respect to the non- applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately from the applicant without any sufÏcient reason. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court itself has given specific finding that non-applicant No. 1 is living separately from the applicant without any sufÏcient reason, and thereby denying her maintenance. However, despite this clear and categorical finding, the Court has still proceeded to grant maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month each to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 which is inconsistent with the reasoning of the Court. He further submits that the non-applicant No. 1 is held to be living separately without just cause, then custody and responsibility of the minor children also deserve a proper reconsideration, especially when the applicant has consistently expressed willingness to maintain and keep the children with him. The non-applicant No. 1 who has persistently obstructed any attempts made by the applicant and refused to allow the children to be with the applicant, thereby frustrating the applicant's genuine efforts to fulfill his parental obligations. The learned Family Court failed to consider the crucial aspect of relative income capacity while determining the quantum of 5 maintenance. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month each in favor of non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, (total 5000/-) along with litigation costs whereby rejected the maintenance claim with respect to the non-applicant No. 1 on the ground that she is residing separately from the applicant without any sufÏcient reason. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance in favour of non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal