Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh v. Tarik Anwar S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1485 of 2019 Smt. Shabnam Parveen W/o Shri Tarik Anwar Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 253, Mines Colony, Jarhi, Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Tarik Anwar S/o Shri Mohammed Hamij Raja Aged About 35 Years R/o Iraki Mohalla , Gardhwa, Police Station And Tahsil Gardhwa, District Gardhwa Jharkhand. ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:39:54 +0530 30.06.2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 1. Heard Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by 2 the Judge, Family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) and enhance the maintenance amount, passed in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 295/2019 and the revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent were married under Muslim law and according to religious customs on 20.04.2015. After the solemnization of the marriage, both of them resided together happily for a period of two years. It is further alleged that soon thereafter, the non-applicant/respondent started harassing the applicant on account of dowry demands, and subsequently, the applicant lodged a report against the respondent. The applicant and the respondent are Muslims (Momdan) and are governed by Muslim personal law and customs. The applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. After the marriage, they lived happily, but after two years, when there was no issue from the marriage, the non-applicant/respondent, along with the father-in-law and mother-in-law, started torturing and ill-treating the applicant. The applicant came to know about the conduct and behavior of the non-applicant/respondent and his family members, and further, the respondent performed a second marriage with another woman. The action of the respondent is clearly an act of cruelty. Presently, the applicant is residing at her parental home, has no independent source of income, is not employed, and is completely dependent upon her parents. 3 4. After leading evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs. 1500/-, which is illegal, as it was passed without properly considering the reply filed by the respondent and the evidence adduced by the respondent and his witnesses. 5. Due to the acts of the respondent and his family members, the applicant is compelled to reside at her parental home. The applicant stated in her statement that the respondent is running an optical shop in the name of “Hind Optical” at Gardhwa Road, Rehla, and earns Rs. 40,000-50,000/- per month. The father of the respondent runs a kirana and wholesale merchant business, earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Additionally, the younger brother of the respondent, Khurshid, is running another Hind Optical shop near Ranka Square, Gardhwa, earning Rs. 40,000-50,000/- per month. It is true that the respondent and his family members are engaged in business and are financially well-off. However, despite having sufÏcient means, they have knowingly failed to fulfill their liability towards the applicant and have not provided any maintenance to her. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Family Judge, Surajpur (C.G.), the applicant submits that the award is illegal and improper, and the same may kindly be enhanced by this Hon’ble Court in favor of the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, Surajpur, has not considered the statements of the 4 witnesses, and the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, has passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 against the applicant. The learned Family Court, Surajpur, has not awarded any maintenance amount in favor of the applicant, due to which the applicant is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. She submits that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and she is presently residing at her parental home. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. According to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents can be passed if any person having sufÏcient means neglects or refuses to maintain them. She also submits that the learned Family Court, Surajpur, ought to have awarded maintenance to the applicant under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the learned Family Court, Surajpur, has not passed any order granting maintenance in favor of the applicant. She further submits that the applicant is presently residing at her parental home, she is unemployed, and she has no source of income. Therefore, she is entitled to receive maintenance. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month, as the amount awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 295/2019 is not sufÏcient for the education, livelihood, and maintenance of the applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the maintenance amount may kindly be enhanced. The actions of the respondent clearly amount to cruelty. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has partly allowed the said application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek