1 2025:CGHC:36124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 276 of 2023 1 - Smt. Rashi Dewangan W/o Naresh Dewangan, Aged About 23 Years (Now Aged About 28 Years), R/o. Beside Anand Hood Center, Mahadev Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Purvi Dewangan D/o Naresh Dewangan, Aged About 3 Years (Now Aged About 08 Years), Minor Through Legal Guardian Her Mother Smt. Rashi Dewangan (Applicant No. 1), R/o. Beside Anand Hood Center, Mahadev Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Naresh Dewangan S/o Late Kishore Dewangan, Aged About 26 Years (Now Aged About 31 Years), R/o. Pujari Para Kamhar Gaon, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manohar Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to enhance the maintenance amount awarded in the order dated 21-01- 2020 (Annexure A/1) from 3000/- to 14,000/- per month, as prayed in the application prayed before the learned Family Court Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 23.01.2017 as per Hindu customs, and from this wedlock, a daughter (applicant No. 2) was born, who is presently about three years old and residing with applicant No. 1 at her maternal home. It is alleged that marital relations were cordial initially, but after the birth of the child, the non-applicant and his mother began harassing applicant No. 1, eventually compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. Since then, she and her daughter have been maintained by her father, who is under heavy debt. The non-applicant is stated to be employed in the electricity department on a private basis, earning approximately Rs. 20,000–22,000 per month, while his mother independently runs a grocery shop, leaving him capable of maintaining both applicants. A claim for interim maintenance of Rs. 14,000/- per month (Rs. 8,000/- for the wife and Rs. 6,000/- for the child) was made; however, by order dated 21.01.2020, the Family 3 Court, Jagdalpur granted only Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 and denied any maintenance to applicant No. 1. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that applicant No. 1, being a housewife with no independent source of income, is entirely dependent on her aged and indebted parents for sustenance and medical expenses, and thus deserves interim maintenance. The Court also erred in granting only Rs. 3,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, which is grossly inadequate to cover even basic living expenses and educational needs of a growing child. Further, despite evidence that the non-applicant is employed in the electricity department and earning approximately Rs. 22,000/- per month, the Court did not take into account his financial capacity or the applicants’ inability to earn. The non-applicant is maintaining a comfortable standard of living, and therefore, the interim maintenance awarded ought to have been fixed at a reasonable amount for both applicants in proportion to his income. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence, and financial circumstances of both parties, rightly exercised its discretion in granting interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month only to applicant No. 2 (the minor daughter) and not to applicant No. 1. The Court correctly noted that applicant No. 1, being able-bodied, is capable of supporting herself and that the primary obligation of the non-applicant is towards the minor child’s immediate needs rather than sustaining an estranged spouse who voluntarily resides apart. Furthermore, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- awarded for the child was considered appropriate in light of the non- applicant’s earnings and other liabilities. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan