2026:CGHC:315 KUNAL NAFR DEWANGAN Digitally s K i U gn N e A d L by HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEWANGAN CRR No. 1290 of 2022 Ibteshar Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Hazi Iftekhar Ahmed Khan Aged About 47 Years R/o- Kharmora, Korba, Tahsil - Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - Shabana Khan D/o - Mohammad Hanif Khan, Aged About 38 Years R/o - Infront Of Petrol Pump, Rajendra Path, Vaishali, Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh

2 - Kumari Sumaila Parveen, D/o Ibteshar Ahmed Khan, Aged About 8 Years 06 Months, R/o - Infront Of Petrol Pump, Rajendra Path, Vaishali, Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

05.01.2026

1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District-Korba (C.G) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 41/2019 in the case title “Ibteshar Ahmed Khan Vs. Shabana Khan and another” (AnnexureP/1) in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that it is an admitted fact that the non-

applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, which was registered as Case No. 15/11, and vide order dated 17.10.2014, a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance. Thereafter, the non-applicants preferred an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, registered as Case No. 236/16, and vide order dated 08.08.2017, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 11,500/- per month.

Except for the aforesaid admitted facts, the remaining allegations are specifically denied. The case of the applicant, as set out in the present application, is that upon obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, it was revealed that non-applicant No. 1 had not admitted any girl named “Sumaila Parveen” in any school, nor was such child studying in any school. Despite this, the applicant has been paying an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 towards education and maintenance. Since non- applicant No. 2 is not studying in any school, continuation of the said expenditure is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be stopped forthwith. It is further contended that non-applicant No. 1 does not have any daughter named Sumaila Parveen, nor is she educating any such child, whereas Sumaila Parveen is, in fact, the biological daughter of the applicant, and maintenance has been awarded by the learned Family Court expressly in her name. The applicant asserts that non-applicant No. 1 is employed as a teacher at Beacon School, Kusmunda, from where she earns approximately Rs. 4,000/- per month, with a clear possibility of future increments, and therefore she is not entitled to receive any maintenance. The applicant has further pleaded that Sumaila Parveen is his daughter and that after non-applicants No. 1 and 2 started living separately from him since the night of 01.10.2010 and after divorce on 23.04.2011, non- applicant No. 1 gave birth to another daughter in the year 2013, whom she named “Kumari Laiba Khan”. However, with an intention to mislead the Court, non-applicant No. 1 falsely showed the date of birth of Laiba Khan as 02.08.2010, whereas the applicant’s daughter Sumaila Parveen was born by surgical operation on 02.08.2010 at D.K. Hospital, Korba. In contrast, the birth certificate of Laiba Khan was obtained showing her birth at Vaishali Nagar, Kusmunda, on the basis of affidavits, panchanama and hospital records, thereby committing fraud upon the Court.

It is alleged that by suppressing true facts and misrepresenting identity, non-applicant No. 1 has been illegally recovering maintenance for herself