Chattisgarh High Court
Shaista Khatoon vs Md. Amin on 25 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:27745
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 760 of 2025
1 - Shaista Khatoon W/o Mohd. Amin Khan Aged About 25 Years D/o Sarouj
Ahmed R/o Masjidpara, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.).
2 - Hasnain S/o Mohd. Amin Khan, Age About 11 Moths (Applicant No. 2 Is
Minor And Applicant No. 1 Is Leagal Guardian (Mother) Of Applicant No.2.
R/o Masjidpara, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.).
... Applicants
versus
Md. Amin S/o Noor Mohammada Aged About 35 Years R/o Vishunpur, Police
Station And Tehsil, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Cg), Presently Residing At
Mohd. Ameem Khan Dynamo Electronic And Parts Dealer And Mechanic,
Navagarh Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja
(CG).
... Respondent/Non-applicant
(Cause title is taken for Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Sajal K. Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent : None present.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Sajal K. Gupta, learned counsel the applicants. None
appears for the respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioners (wife &
minor son) under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984
challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 78/2023 wherein it was held by the Family Court that
applicant No. 2/minor son is entitled to get maintenance of Rs.
2,500/- per month whereas applicant No. 1 is not entitled to get
maintenance under the provisions contained in Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage (Nikah) of the applicant
No. 1 was solemnized with the non-applicant/respondent herein on
29.10.2020 as per Muslim personal law and customary rites and
traditions, and from their wedlock, they have been blessed with one
male child, aged about 11 months at present. After some time of
marriage, due to harrassment meted out to the applicant No. 1/wife
by respondent in connection with demand of dowry, she was
compelled to live apart from her husband and, therefore, she left the
company of husband and started residing with her parents along
with her minor child at Surajpur. Thereafter, applicants filed an
application under Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, before the Family Court seeking maintenance from
respondent (husband) for herself and minor child i.e. Rs.12,000/-
per month for applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs.8,000/- per month for
applicant No. 2 (minor boy), respectively [Total Rs.20,000].
4. The respondent / husband filed his reply to the aforesaid
application, in which, he has denied all the substantive pleadings
made by applicants. It is averred that Head of the Mosque and
other persons had gone with the respondent/husband to take her
(wife) back from her maternal home in Surajpur, along with whom
the applicant No. 1/wife also returned to her matrimonial home. The
respondent / husband has never harrassed or humiliated the
applicant No.1/ wife. It is further averred that respondent /husband
wants to maintain the applicant No. 1 and his son in a normal way,
but due to non co-operative behaviour of his wife, because of his
extravagant nature, the applicant No. 1/wife has raised dispute. It
is stated that respondent / husband wants to keep applicants with
him.
5. Learned Family Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, vide impugned order dated
21.03.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and granted maintenance to
applicant No. 2/minor child to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month but
declined to grant maintenance to applicant No. 1/wife. Hence, this
criminal revision.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
learned Family Court has committed an error in law in allowing the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in part by holding that wife is
not entitled for any maintenance whereas only applicant No.
2/minor child is entitled for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-
per month, which is a very meager amount. He submits that
learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the cruelty and
desertion meted out to the applicant No.1/wife by respondent
/husband and his family members compelled her to live apart from
him and residing with her parental house alongwith her minor child.
He submits that respondent/husband has well established source of
income and standard of living, whereas, the applicant No. 1 has no
source of income to earn her livelihood, despite that learned Family
Court has declined to grant maintenance to applicant No. 1/wife and
granted a meager sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month to applicant
No. 2, therefore, it is prayed that application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants may be allowed and enhance the
maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month for
applicant No. 2 / minor child and grant maintenance of Rs.12,000/-
to applicant No. 1/wife.
7. None appears on behalf of the respondent.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto.
9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicant and from the perusal of the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, it
transpires that neither applicant No. 1/wife did make any complaint
in the Society of Anujman Committee in relation to the allegations
levelled against the respondent /wife nor she (applicant No.1) has
adduced any documentary evidence regarding demand of dowry,
rather she presented only oral evidence regarding demand of
dowry. Further, Head of the Mosque and other persons namely
Kaleen Ullah, Dilawar Khan & Ali Ahmad had gone with the
respondent/husband to take her back from her maternal home in
Surajpur, and along with whom the applicant No. 1/wife also
returned to her matrimonial home, but none of them were examined
before the Court on behalf of the applicants, as those persons could
have been very important witnesses in relation to the point of
dispute, in absence whereof, the Family Court has rightly declined
to grant maintenance to applicant No. 1 wife and amount of
maintenance granted to applicant No. 2/son i.e. Rs. 2,500/- per
month cannot be said to be on lower side. As such, this court does
not find illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting
interference of this court. Hence, the same is hereby affirmed.
10. As a consequence, the criminal revision, being devoid of substance,
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
11. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy
of this order to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary
compliance and follow up action, if any.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
amita
