Saifiya Fatima Qureshi W/o Irshad Ahmed. Aged About 41 Years Kela Badi Near Majar v. Irshad Ahmed S/o Hadis Ahmed Present Address Irshad Ahed. Seinor Process Associate, Thourgh In
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:48981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 975 of 2021 Saifiya Fatima Qureshi W/o Irshad Ahmed. Aged About 41 Years Kela Badi Near Majar, District ,durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Irshad Ahmed S/o Hadis Ahmed Present Address Irshad Ahed. Seinor Process Associate, Thourgh In Charge Tata Consultancy Services (Tcs), Gandhi Nagar, Gujargat Premanent Address 2575, Mig 1 Kurud, Housing Board Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.09.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: A. “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order/direct that the entire records pertaining to Cr. MJC- 33/2016 shall be called for so as to adjudicate the present revision application. B. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order/direct that the maintenance amount be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2 20,000/- taking into consideration the facts of the case and precedents as pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. C. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order/direct that the maintenance amount should be given to the applicant from the date when the filing of the application for maintenance took place i.e. 178/08/2015, following the principle laid down in Rajnesh V. Neha 2020 SCC Online 903. D. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order/direct that this Hon’ble Court may pass any other order in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26/04/2014, a Muslim marriage was solemnized between the applicant and the non-applicant at Durg, Chhattisgarh, in accordance with Muslim personal law. The marriage was consensual and both families willingly agreed to the Nikah. However, within 3–4 days of the marriage, the non-applicant was left her, as he departed alone to Ahmedabad, Gujarat, to continue his employment with Tata Consultancy Services. Since the date of marriage, the applicant has never resided with her husband at his place of work. Moreover, in her matrimonial home, she was treated in the manner of a servant by the parents of the non- applicant. Four months after the marriage, during the festival of Moharram, when, as per custom, a newly wedded wife is expected to spend her first Moharram at her maternal home, the applicant 3 was subjected to humiliation and physical abuse by the non- applicant’s parents, who also made an unlawful demand of ₹10,00,000/- for purchasing a flat in Ahmedabad. She was consequently sent back to her maternal home seven days prior to Moharram. Thereafter, the applicant was never allowed to return to her matrimonial home. A social meeting was convened on 26/05/2015, nearly nine months later, wherein the family members of the non-applicant expressed their intention to divorce the applicant. This conduct and approach deeply distressed and disappointed the applicant and her family. Consequently, a complaint was lodged regarding the behavior of the non-applicant and his family members. On 17/08/2015, the applicant, being without any independent source of income and entirely dependent, filed an application for maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- before the Family Court concerned. During the adjudication of the said application on 26/10/2021, documentary evidence established that the non-applicant was employed as an Assistant Manager at Tata Consultancy Services, earning ₹7,27,750/- per annum (approximately ₹60,645/- per month). 3. Considering the documents placed before the Family Court concerned and heard both the parties, the learned Family Court concerned decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2021, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of passing of the order. Hence, this revision petition for enhancement of maintenance amount. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family 4 Court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to apply the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts regarding the determination of just and proper maintenance. It is a settled proposition that a wife is entitled to a reasonable share in her husband’s income, as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Babita Bisht v. Dharmendra Singh Bisht [Cri. Rev. Petition No. 456/2015], further relied upon by this Hon’ble Court in CRR No. 1102/2019, Smt. Shilpi Shrivastava v. Manmohan Gopal (order dated 07/04/2021), wherein 1/3rd of the husband’s gross income was considered appropriate for fixing maintenance. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy [(2017) 14 SCC 200] has held that awarding 25% of the husband’s net salary to the wife as maintenance is just and proper. In the present case, despite clear documentary proof that the non-applicant earns more than ₹7,27,000/- per annum, the learned Family Court arbitrarily restricted the maintenance to a meagre sum of ₹10,000/-, which neither matches the legal standards nor sufÏces to maintain the applicant in the same lifestyle she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The applicant is a dependent lady with no independent source of income, and in the prevailing cost of living, ₹10,000/- is wholly insufÏcient to meet even her reasonable needs. Hence, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and calls for suitable enhancement of the maintenance amount in favour of the applicant. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record by both parties, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹10,000/- per month to the applicant/wife from the date of passing of the order. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living to which the applicant was accustomed during the subsistence of marriage, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. The impugned order reflects a just and fair assessment made by the Family Court upon appreciation of the material available on record. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal