Facts
The applicant, Shabana Khatun, married the respondent, Muzakkir Khan, on 12.01.2010. Following the death of their son and the respondent’s alleged illicit relationship and subsequent second marriage, the applicant was abandoned at her parental home without financial support
Source reference: p. 2-3On 16.09.2025, she filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, claiming the respondent earned Rs. 40,000/- per month from a tractor repair shop and as a Ward Panch
Source reference: p. 3The Circuit Family Court, Kunkuri, in Case No. Misc. Cr. Case No. 49/2025, estimated the respondent's income at Rs. 9,000/- per month and awarded a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month via order dated 25.02.2026
Source reference: p. 3-4The applicant filed this criminal revision seeking an enhancement to Rs. 10,000/- per month
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded by the Family Court was inadequate or arbitrary based on the respondent's actual financial capacity.
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 32. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in assessing the respondent's monthly income at Rs. 9,000/- in the absence of documentary evidence.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 6Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which mandates the husband's obligation to maintain his wife
Source reference: p. 3It considered the principles of Muslim Personal Law regarding the absolute obligation of a husband to provide for his wife
Source reference: p. 4acknowledged the precedents of Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana & Anr. and Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., which establish that Muslim wives are entitled to maintenance and that income assessments should be based on affidavits and material evidence
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The High Court examined the Family Court's reasoning and found that the trial court acted within its legal bounds. The court noted that while the applicant claimed the respondent earned Rs. 40,000/-, she failed to produce "cogent documentary proof" to substantiate this higher income
Source reference: p. 5Consequently, the Family Court's decision to estimate income at Rs. 9,000/- and award maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- (approximately one-sixth of the income) was deemed a prudent exercise of judicial discretion based on the available record
Source reference: p. 5-6The High Court determined that there was no "perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error" as the trial court had afforded both parties due opportunity and evaluated the evidence presented
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The High Court held that the Family Court's order was well-reasoned and justified, finding no illegality or infirmity warranting interference. The court answered the issues in the negative, affirming that the maintenance was proportionate to the assessed income
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed for being devoid of merit, and the trial court was directed to be informed of the compliance
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
SHABANA KHATUNvsMUZAKKIR KHAN (Wrongly mentioned in Muzakker Khan as per impugned order)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in