Chattisgarh High Court
Zainul Haque vs Hina Kausar on 12 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:22337
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 657 of 2026
Zainul Haque S/o Shri Nazrul Haque Aged About 36 Years R/o
Motijharan, P.S. Dhanupali, Sambalpur, Distt.- Sambalpur (Odisha)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Hina Kausar W/o Zainul Haque Aged About 29 Years D/o Shabbir Ali,
R/o Pandari, Kali Nagar, Imambada, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Aaziya @ Zara Fatima D/o Shri Zainul Haque Aged About 2 Years (At
Present 6 Years, Under The Guardianship Of Her Mother), R/o Pandari,
Kali Nagar, Imambada, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.05.2026
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the instant criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 27/02/2026 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court Raipur in M.J.C. No. 63/2022, in the interest of justice."
RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the present Petitioner and Respondent No. 01 was solemnized on 28/12/2018 at Sambalpur, Odisha in accordance with the customs and rituals of Mohammedan Law and after the Nikah both the parties resided together at Sambalpur and initially led a peaceful matrimonial life. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter namely Aaziya @ Zara Fatima (Respondent No. 02) was born on 06/12/2019. The Petitioner is running a small readymade cloth shop at Sambalpur and from the income earned therefrom he used to maintain and fulfill all the needs and necessities of his wife and daughter. However, after some time of marriage, the Respondent No. 01 started pressurizing the Petitioner to live separately from his aged father and on refusal of the Petitioner, her behavior became rude and quarrelsome and she started creating disputes on trivial issues. Despite repeated efforts made by the Petitioner to save the matrimonial relationship and maintain peace in the family, the Respondent No. 01 continued to ill-treat the Petitioner and his family members and also threatened to falsely implicate them in criminal cases. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 01 lodged a series of false complaints and criminal cases against the Petitioner and his family members before Mahila Thana and Police Station Dhanupali, Sambalpur, which were registered as GR Case No. 3612/2020, GR Case No. 1044/2021, GR Case No. 2592/2021, GR Case No. 2758/2021, GR Case No. 3191/2021, GR Case No. 2591/2021 and GR Case No. 3192/2021 under various provisions of IPC, Domestic Violence Act and Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) 3 Act only with a mala fide intention to harass the Petitioner and his family members. On 06/10/2020, the Respondent No. 01 voluntarily left the matrimonial house along with the minor daughter and all household articles and started residing separately and also lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A/506/34 IPC against the Petitioner and his family members. Even thereafter, the Petitioner made sincere efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home, however, the Respondent No. 01 refused to resume cohabitation unless the Petitioner separated from his old father and started living independently.
3. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 01 initiated further proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also started residing separately at her parental house situated at Raipur along with the minor daughter from the year 2020 onwards. Since all efforts of reconciliation failed and there remained no possibility of reunion, the Petitioner with a heavy heart executed a Deed of Divorce by pronouncing Talaq on 17/03/2021 in presence of witnesses in accordance with Mohammedan Law and after completion of iddat period, the Qazi, Sambalpur issued Divorce Certificate dated 02/07/2021 acknowledging dissolution of marriage between the parties. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 01 filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act registered as CMC (DV) No. 80/2021 wherein the learned SDJM, Sambalpur vide order dated 12/04/2021 directed the Petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, against which the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 11/2021 and the 4 learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide judgment dated 13/09/2021 modified the said order and directed payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month along with providing two room accommodation to the Respondent No. 01 at Motijharan area, Sambalpur. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 01 again filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur on 25/01/2022 registered as M.J.C. No. 63/2022 claiming maintenance from the present Petitioner despite the earlier proceedings already pending between the parties.
4. Upon receiving notice from the learned Family Court, Raipur, the Petitioner appeared and filed his detailed reply along with preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in view of the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and also filed affidavit in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha. During pendency of the proceedings, the learned Family Court vide interim order dated 21/07/2025 awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each to Respondent No. 01 and Respondent No. 02 from the date of application i.e. 25/01/2022, against which the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 1215/2025 before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court directed the learned Family Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. Thereafter, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur vide impugned final order dated 27/02/2026 passed in M.J.C. No. 63/2022 awarded total maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 5 10,000/- per month to Respondent No. 01 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 02 from the date of application, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, earlier proceedings between the parties and the actual financial condition of the present Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27/02/2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur is illegal, arbitrary, excessive and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that though a wife may initiate proceedings under different statutory enactments for claiming maintenance, however, the husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance repeatedly under each proceeding without any adjustment or set-off. In the present case, the Petitioner is already complying with the order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereby, pursuant to the judgment dated 13/09/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, the Petitioner is paying interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to Respondent No. 01 and has also provided two room accommodation to her at Motijharan area, Sambalpur, yet the learned Family Court below, without considering the said material fact, has further awarded maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., thereby causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to properly 6 appreciate the actual financial condition and earning capacity of the Petitioner, who is merely running a small readymade cloth shop in a rented premises at Sambalpur and from the meager income earned therefrom he is maintaining himself, his old ailing father, four dependent sisters and also bearing medical expenses of his father amounting to approximately Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is contended that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate to the actual income of the Petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No. 01 had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial house on 06/10/2020 along with Respondent No. 02 and all household articles without any sufficient cause despite repeated efforts made by the Petitioner for reconciliation and resumption of cohabitation, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that Respondent No. 01 is a young, educated and able-bodied lady capable of maintaining herself, however, the learned Family Court ignored the said material aspect while passing the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the marriage between the parties already stands dissolved by way of valid Talaq dated 17/03/2021 under Mohammedan Law in presence of witnesses and thereafter the Qazi, Sambalpur issued Divorce Certificate dated 02/07/2021 after completion of iddat period, therefore, after dissolution of marriage the Respondent No. 01 is governed by the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and in absence of compliance of 7 Section 5 of the said Act, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not maintainable. It is further contended that Respondent No. 01 deliberately concealed material facts before the learned Family Court and even in the affidavit filed pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, falsely stated that she was not receiving maintenance in any other proceedings, whereas admittedly she was already receiving maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act pursuant to the judgment dated 13/09/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. He also submits that the learned Family Court has mechanically passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence available on record and without considering the settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary Vs. Radha Chaudhary, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 286, wherein it has been held that maintenance awarded in one proceeding is liable to be adjusted against maintenance awarded in another proceeding. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Murtaza Ahmed @ Mobin Vs. Rubi Jaha @ Fiza (CRR No. 892/2024), wherein this Hon'ble Court while relying upon the principles laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha has categorically held that where successive claims for maintenance are made under different statutes, the Court is required to consider adjustment/set-off of the amount awarded in earlier proceedings and the petitioner is under mandatory obligation 8 to disclose previous proceedings and orders passed therein. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity and incorrect appreciation of facts and law and is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the fact that the Respondent No. 01 along with the minor child is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for their sustenance, welfare and dignified life, and has correctly taken into account the admitted income and earning capacity of the Petitioner while determining the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month for Respondent No. 01 and Rs. 8,000/- per month for Respondent No. 02. Further the contention regarding previous proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not disentitle the Respondents from claiming independent relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as it is a settled principle of law that maintenance proceedings under different enactments are independent in nature and the object of each statute is to provide social and economic justice to a deserted wife and minor child, and there is no bar in law to simultaneous proceedings, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the Courts are required to ensure fair, reasonable and consistent maintenance and avoid conflicting 9 orders by considering all previous awards while determining the final liability. Further the learned Family Court has also rightly taken into consideration the welfare of the minor child, which is of paramount importance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and has passed a reasoned and well-balanced order after due appreciation of the financial status of both parties, ensuring that neither the Respondents are left in destitution nor the Petitioner is subjected to an excessive burden beyond his capacity. Upon careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the impugned judgment is a just, equitable and legally sustainable order passed in accordance with settled principles of law.
9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan