2026:CGHC:5814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 860 of 2024 Ahtesham Ali S/o Late Shahadat Hussain Aged About 34 Years R/o Handi Para Near Musa Hotel, Momin Para, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Applicant versus Smt. Naziya Fatima W/o Shri Ahtesham Ali, D/o Hamid Ali, Aged About 25 Years Presently R/o Behind Momin Para Masjid, Tatiya Para, Raipur, District-

Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate.

Digitally s P i R g E ne E d T I by For Respondent : Ms. Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate.

PREETI KUMARI KUMARI Date:

2026.02.04

12:40:32 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

02.02.2026

1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated

29.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Cr.M.C.C. No. 932/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and directed the applicant/husband that he has to pay amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent.

2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent–wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 22,500/- per month. The marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Muslim rites and rituals, in the presence of family members and with mutual consent, on 02.02.2020 at Mominara, Handipara, Raipur. In the said application, the respondent–wife alleged that a few months after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started demanding a motorcycle and a television as dowry. It was further alleged that the applicant and his family members restricted her social interactions and prevented her from meeting her relatives, friends, and parents, thereby subjecting her to mental and physical harassment. It was also alleged that she was taunted by her in-laws on the ground that she was not physically fit to give birth to a child. It was further alleged that on 20.08.2020, the respondent–wife went to her parental home on the occasion of Moharram for ten days. However, when she returned on 30.08.2020 along with her father, the applicant and his family members refused to take her back into the matrimonial home, and since then she has been residing separately at her parental home. In order to reconcile the marriage, a social meeting was arranged by the respondent’s father on 01.09.2020; however, due to the non-participation of the applicant, the meeting could not be held. The respondent–wife claimed that the applicant earns a monthly income of Rs. 45,000/- from his work as a motor mechanic as well as from rental income, and on that basis sought maintenance of Rs. 22,500/- per month.

3. After issuance of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply to the maintenance application. In the reply, while admitting the undisputed facts, the applicant denied all other allegations. It was specifically stated that neither the applicant nor his family members ever subjected the respondent to mental or physical cruelty. On the contrary, it was contended that the respondent–wife exhibited cruel behavior towards the applicant’s mother and other family members, failed to perform her matrimonial duties, and repeatedly threatened to commit suicide. Due to her conduct, written complaints were also made to the police and the State Women Commission. It was further stated that the applicant earns only about Rs. 7,000/- per month, out of which approximately Rs. 3,000/- is spent on the medical treatment of his mother, and the remaining amount is used for household expenses, leaving no surplus income. It was further contended that the respondent–wife is well educated and engaged in “Silai/Kadhai” work, from which she earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was asserted that the maintenance application was filed by suppressing these material facts and therefore deserved dismissal. Ho