Mohd. Niyazuddin Vs Smt. Arshiya Anjum

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:46394

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 611 of 2015

¶6

Mohd. Niyazuddin S/o Sheikh Imamuddin Aged About 34 Years Occupation Engineer, R/o Nai Basti Rajatalab, Infront Of Igal Church, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

Smt. Arshiya Anjum W/o Mohd. Niyazuddin Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Ramayan Badi, Ashwani Nagar, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant	: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. K.K. Dixit, R.K. Dixit, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

¶13

26.11.2024

¶14

1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:

¶15

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06-06-2015 (Annexure A-1), passed in Criminal M.J.C. 585/13 by

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), in the interest of justice.”

¶18

2. The facts of the case, are that, the non-applicant had filed an application for under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs.5000/- and submitted that the applicant is having an Income of about 20,000/- per month. The applicant filed the reply and denied all allegations against the applicant and also stated in the reply that she has presented an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her son of Rs. 7000/- and 3000/-each respectively, which was registered as Case No. 357/2007, to which the applicant objected and stated that the non-applicant is divorce muslim woman so she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount. In that case, the non-applicant through the compromise agreed to take Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance for her son and no maintenance to be given to herself. The evidences were adduced and after hearing the parties the learned Family Court passed the order dated 06-062015 of maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the non-applicant. The applicant has filed criminal revision No. 565/2015, which was withdrawn with liberty to file duly constituted petition. Hence, this present revision.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, therefore liable to be set- aside. Further, the learned lower court ought to have considered the fact that the non-applicant has not presented any afÏdavit under Section 5 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Even otherwise the amount which is awarded by the learned family court is too high, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

3 / 3

¶21

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order and granted Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance amount to the non-applicant.

¶22

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court.

¶23

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance which cannot be said to be on higher side considering the price index and living standard and further observing that applicant herein has himself admitted in his examination-in-chief that he is a private engineer and his monthly income is at least Rs.20,000/- and further, non-applicant is a housewife and also has a child to take care of.

¶24

7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶25

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶26

9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶29

Kunal