1 2025:CGHC:41441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1099 of 2024 Rakesh Dewangan S/o Late Shankarlal Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Gopalpuri, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kalpana Dewangan W/o Rakesh Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Mandi Gate, Pandri Tarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Naveen Shukla, learned counsel for the Non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that impugned-order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, passed in M.J.C. No. 188/2021 (Smt. Kalpana Dewangan v. Rakesh Dewangan) may kindly be set aside.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that according to the non-applicant filed an application for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was registered in M.J.C. No. 188/2021 by the Family Court, Raipur, stating reason that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant. They performed marriage on 10.7.2019 following Hindu customs and caste tradition. Their marriage life is full of tragedy, wife becomes quarrelsome nature. She don't want to reside with applicant his house. Immediately after their marriage non-applicant/wife showed drastic change in the behavior which was incorrigible. Non-applicant deserted him after few days of marriage, who was taken back by husband. Again she left home and lodged FIR under Section 498-(A), 34 of IPC, against the applicant, his mother and sisters. Thereafter, she resides with her parents at her parental home. Thereafter, due to lack of financial hardship, she filed the application for grant of maintenance. 4. The husband (applicant) denied the allegations made by the Non- applicant. He completely disagreed and shocked with this maintenance application of the non-applicant. The allegations of the wife is baseless and against the fact. Relying the statements of the non-applicant and unproved documents. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant as an amount of maintenance from the date of filing of application. Hence this revision petition. 3 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is against the law and facts. He further submits that the non-applicant is legally wedded wife and granted maintenance against the provision of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. He also submits that the non-applicant herself doesn't want to reside with the applicant, he wants all her family members reside together under the roof. It is admitted fact that non-applicant left his house and shifted to her parental home and the salary of the applicant is Rs. 7000/- but it has not been taken into consideration. The applicants opportunity of adducing affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 was dismissed due to which he did not stated his contention. He further submits that the husband is landless person and earns only Rs. 7000/- such fact has been considered but the learned Family Court fixed maintenance allowance of Rs. 5000/-, without lawful assessment which is arbitrary in nature and not judicious order and the applicant has huge responsibility of mother and 2 unmarried sisters. He has to take care of them also. Applicant is ready to take her back with all due respect. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal