2026:CGHC:8140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1232 of 2024 Anwar Hussain S/o Late Iftekhar Hussain Aged About 43 Years R/o Quarter No. 5-B, Street No. 24, Sector- 1, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgar ... Applicant versus

1. Firdaus Anjum W/o Anwar Hussain Aged About 37 Years R/o Ismile Nandai Para, Near Kuan Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Amrin Hussain S/o Anwar Hussain Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian And Mother Firdaus Anjum W/o Anwar Hussain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ismile Nandai Para, Near Kuan Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate.

For Non-Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate.

Digitally signed by PREETI P K R U E M E A T R I I Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice KUMARI Date:

2026.02.19

10:27:15 +0530 Order on Board

13 .02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Also heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant.

2. I.A. No. 01/2024, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 06 days.

3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.80/2022 whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the husband/applicant to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1/wife No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- to non-applicant No.2/son.

5. The brief facts of the case is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance. In the said application, it was stated that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 07.09.2012, and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 was born. It was alleged that the applicant failed to properly maintain the non- applicants and did not make adequate arrangements for their daily needs and food. Owing to such neglect, non-applicant No. 1 returned to her parental home in July 2014. She thereafter lodged a complaint before the Mahila Cell, which initiated counselling proceedings; however, the applicant did not appear before the Mahila Cell, and therefore no compromise could be arrived at. It was further stated that non-applicant No. 1, along with her daughter, went to the applicant’s house for restitution of conjugal rights, but the applicant refused to keep them. Consequently, she returned to her parental home and has been residing there since October 2019. It was also alleged that the applicant has sufficient sources of income, but despite this, he has not paid any amount towards the maintenance of the non-applicants. Hence, the application for grant of maintenance was filed.

6. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying the allegations made in the application. He submitted that non-applicant No. 1 is residing separately without any reasonable cause and that he never subjected her to cruelty. It was further contended that non-applicant No. 1 was unwilling to live with the applicant and used to frequently visit her parental home without informing him. The applicant also stated that non-applicant No. 1 has sufficient means of income, whereas he himself is not gainfully employed and is responsible for maintaining his old and ailing parents. Therefore, since non-applicant No. 1 is living separately without sufficient cause, the non-applicants are not entitled to any maintenance. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 25.07.2024, directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,500