1 2026:CGHC:21416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 627 of 2026 Vineet Raj Dewangan S/o Yashwant Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 01, Gond Gali, Nayapara, P. S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Neha Dewangan W/o Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10, Lixmi Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jayansh Dewangan S/o Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 6 Years Through Their Legal Guardian Mother (Non Applicant No. 1 Smt. Neha Dewangan) R/o House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10, Lixmi Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kunjal Dewangan S/o Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 5 Years 6 Months. Through Their Legal Guardian Mother (Non Applicant No. 1 Smt. Neha Dewangan) R/o House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10, Lixmi Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /05/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.03.2026 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Regular Criminal Case No.1113/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife were married on 07.05.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock two sons, namely Kunjal Dewangan and Jayansh Dewangan, were born. It is alleged by the applicant that soon after the marriage, the respondent No.1 started pressurizing him to live separately from his aged parents, which led to frequent disputes between them. Despite several efforts made by the applicant for reconciliation and even shifting to a separate residence, the behaviour of respondent No.1 allegedly remained non-cooperative and hostile. The applicant further alleged that she neglected household responsibilities and care of the children, and also misbehaved with and physically assaulted his mother. It is further alleged that during her second pregnancy, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home and thereafter refused to return, besides lodging false criminal cases against the applicant and his family members, 3 compelling them to obtain anticipatory bail. During pendency of the proceedings, the learned trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month, and subsequently by the impugned order awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of application. Hence, the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is contrary to the evidence available on record and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and law. It is contended that the learned trial Court erred in treating the filing of a divorce petition by the applicant/husband as refusal to maintain or reside with the wife, while ignoring that the divorce proceedings were initiated on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is further submitted that despite repeated efforts made by the applicant for reconciliation, including shifting to a separate residence as per the wife’s demand, the respondent/wife continued her hostile conduct and ultimately deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate that the applicant is maintaining the second son, who is residing with him, and bearing all expenses towards his education, medical care, and upbringing, which itself reflects his bona fide conduct and disproves the allegation of neglect. The applicant submits that the Trial Court failed to record any specific finding regarding existence of sufficient reason for the wife to live separately and mechanically awarded maintenance in her favour. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant has also challenged the quantum and retrospective operation of the maintenance order on the ground that the trial Court directed payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of application i.e. 26.08.2023, without assigning any reason for not granting it from the date of order. It is submitted that the applicant is a mechanic running a small garage and has limited income and several financial liabilities. According to the applicant, the retrospective grant of maintenance has created huge arrears causing severe financial hardship and the learned trial Court failed to properly assess his actual earning capacity and liabilities before passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance, holding that respondent No.1/wife was residing separately for sufficient cause as the applicant had failed to take a specific defence that he was willing to keep and maintain her and had also instituted a divorce proceeding against her. The learned Family Court further held that respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were living separately from the applicant and were entitled to maintenance, whereas respondent No.3 was 5 denied maintenance as he was residing with the applicant/father. The Court also observed that although the allegations regarding the applicant’s income from garage business and property dealings were not fully supported by documentary evidence, considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which was found to be just and proper. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil