1 2026:CGHC:925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 138 of 2023 Nurelal Dewangan S/o Shri Keshav Ram Devangan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Markatola, P.S. And Tahsil Khariagarh Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Now District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.)) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Seema Dewangan W/o Nurelal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Baherabhata, P.S. Deori, Tahsil Dondilohara Distt. Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. F 209/2019 between Smt. Seema Dewangan Vs. Nurelal Dewangan passed by learned Family Court, Balod Dist. Balod (C.G.).” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant/wife 7led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), stating that the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant and the non-applicant were married to each other on 28.04.2009 at Village Baherabhata, where all rites and rituals were performed according to Hindu traditions and customs, and thereafter they resided together. For the sake of brevity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were before the learned Family Court. In the said application, the non-applicant alleged that after marriage, the applicant treated her well for about three years, but thereafter he started mentally harassing and torturing her by making allegations that she could not give birth to a child and by abusing and beating her, threatening that he would marry another woman. The non-applicant further alleged that the applicant developed a relationship with another woman of the village, namely Minakshi Dewangan, who frequently visited the applicant’s house. It was alleged that the applicant and his family members started harassing the non-applicant by stating that the applicant would remarry Minakshi Dewangan as the non-applicant was unable to conceive. The non-applicant further alleged that her in-laws treated her like a servant and compelled her to work in agricultural 7elds. Despite tolerating such conduct with the hope that their behaviour would improve, the harassment allegedly continued unabated. It was further pleaded that due to the aforesaid conduct, the non-applicant started residing separately from the applicant since 2016. It was further alleged that the applicant remarried Minakshi Dewangan on 08.07.2019 at Arya Samaj, Baijnathpara, Raipur (C.G.), and in this regard, a certi7cate was issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Markatola on 14.09.2019. The non-applicant further 3 alleged that after the said remarriage, a meeting was convened in Village Markatola, wherein the applicant agreed to provide her a house, agricultural land and maintenance for her livelihood and sought 15–20 days’ time to make arrangements. However, it was alleged that on 18.07.2019, the applicant and his family members forcibly drove her out of the house, due to which she started residing with her parents at Village Baherabhata. As the applicant failed to ful7ll his assurance, the non-applicant lodged a written complaint before the Women Cell, Balod, on 18.09.2019, where counselling proceedings were conducted, but the applicant refused to take her back. The non-applicant further pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and alleged that the applicant earns about ₹3,00,000/- per annum, and accordingly claimed maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. 3. The applicant 7led his reply denying all the allegations except the admitted facts and contended that neither he nor his family members ever harassed or subjected the non-applicant to cruelty. It was pleaded that after about 10 years of marriage, as there was no issue from the wedlock, the non-applicant herself consented to the applicant’s remarriage to continue the lineage, and accordingly he married Minakshi Dewangan on 08.07.2019. It was further pleaded that after a few months of the second marriage, the non-applicant’s behaviour changed and she started misbehaving and abusing the applicant. A meeting of the community elders was convened to resolve the dispute, but the non-applicant refused to heed their advice and chose to reside separately at her parental home of her 4 own volition. The applicant further alleged that the she lodged a false report of assault on 25.07.2019 against him and his family members, and again lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Balod, when the applicant went to her parental house to bring her back. Counselling was conducted by the Women Cell, Balod, but the non- applicant refused to resume cohabitation. It was further pleaded that she is an educated woman capable of maintaining herself, and that the applicant is neither the owner of any grocery shop nor agricultural land and is merely a labourer earning his livelihood with great diBculty. Therefore, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application on the ground that the non-applicant is residing separately without suBcient cause. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 12.10.2022, partly allowed the application in favour of non- applicant and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of application, i.e., 10.12.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Family Court, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in awarding maintenance of ₹3,500/- per month, which is on the higher side and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the facts and submissions in their correct perspective. The applicant or his family members never subjected the non-applicant to cruelty, abuse or harassment, rather, 5 the non-applicant herself willfully left the matrimonial home without any justi7able cause and went to her parental house at Village Baherabhata, District Balod, along with her father, without properly informing the applicant. It is further submitted that the second marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the consent and wish of the non-applicant, and even thereafter, the applicant has always been ready and willing to maintain her and resume cohabitation. Despite several attempts made by the applicant to bring her back to the matrimonial home and start a new life with her, she has consistently refused to return on her own volition. The learned Family Court further erred in directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, ignoring the fact that the applicant was already paying interim maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month pursuant to order dated 22.02.2021. Moreover, the learned Family Court wrongly assessed the income of the applicant and erroneously presumed that he has suBcient sources of income, whereas in reality he has limited means and struggles to maintain himself. Thus, the impugned order suEers from serious illegality, arbitrariness and non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside or suitably modi7ed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned has meticulously considered the pleadings of both the parties, the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and the conduct of the parties. The learned 6 Family Court has recorded a categorical 7nding that the marital relationship between the parties is admitted and that the non- applicant/wife is living separately from the applicant. The learned Family Court has further taken into consideration the fact that the applicant has solemnized a second marriage and that the non- applicant is unable to maintain herself. After due appreciation of the material on record, the learned Family Court has assessed the income and earning capacity of the applicant and, by assigning cogent reasons, has awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance. The 7ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suEer from any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and 7nding recorded by learned Family Court, 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OBce is directed to send a certi7ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal