1 2026:CGHC:20977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 620 of 2026 1 - Smt. Yogita Dewangan W/o- Dolanath Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o- Kotra Road, Near Chunabhatta Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Jhilmit (Babu) S/o- Dolanath Dewangan, Age 2 Month, Minor Through His Mother Smt. Yogita Dewangan, R/o- Kotra Road, Near Chunabhatta Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Dolanath Dewangan S/o- Late Narendra Dewangan, Aged About 31 Years R/o- Gram Shashipur, Chandrapur P.S. Chandrapur Tehsil- Dabhra District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.05.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 03.01.2026 passed in Criminal MJC Case No. 67/2023 by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-per month to applicant No.2 but has failed to grant appropriate maintenance to applicant No.1 and by way of the present revision, the applicants pray KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application, modify the impugned order and grant suitable maintenance to Applicant No.1, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 and the non- applicant tied the knot with each other on 03.05.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Kotra Road, District Raigarh (C.G.), and out of their wedlock, applicant No.2, namely Jhilmit, was born on 18.04.2023. It is alleged by applicant No.1 that after two months of marriage, the non-applicant as well as the in-laws of applicant No.1 started taunting her on the ground that no sufÏcient dowry was given by her parents. It is further stated that the family of the non-applicant did not provide proper food to her and also disliked the food prepared by her. The non-applicant and his mother used to assault applicant No.1 even during her pregnancy. All the expenses for the birth of applicant No.2 were borne by the parents of applicant No.1. On 24.04.2023, the applicant No.1 again went to her matrimonial home, but the non-applicant continuously abused and assaulted her, due to which she was compelled to leave the house along with applicant No.2 on the same day and lodged a complaint at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh. It is further stated that the non-applicant is engaged in the business of weaving and also runs a computer centre, from which he earns approximately Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per months. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application on 07.06.2023 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month before the learned Family Court concerned for applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month for applicant No.2. 3 3. The non-applicant appeared and filed his reply before the learned Family Court concerned, wherein he specifically stated that after marriage, applicant No.1 insisted that the non-applicant should live separately from his mother and brother. It is further stated that applicant No.1 did not perform household work, due to which the mother of the non-applicant had to do all the work. It is also alleged that on 15.09.2022 at about 12:00 PM, applicant No.1 attempted to commit suicide and upon being questioned, she stated that her in-laws were pressurizing her to do household work. On 06.11.2023, the learned Family Court, Raigarh passed an interim order in favour of the applicants directing the non-applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- to applicant No.2 as interim maintenance. Thereafter, upon considering the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, Raigarh, vide order dated 03.01.2026, partly allowed the application of the applicants and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 as maintenance, while denying maintenance to applicant No.1. 4. After framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 03.01.2026, rejected the maintenance claim of applicant No. 1 on the ground that without any sufÏcient cause, she has been residing separately and and partly allowed the claim of applicant No. 2, granting a maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh is erroneous and suffers from material irregularity, and is liable to be modified to the extent that applicant No.1 has been wrongly denied maintenance. It is further 4 submitted that applicant No.1 had lodged a complaint on 24.04.2023 at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh alleging harassment and torture by the non-applicant on account of demand of dowry, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court and the Court has erroneously observed that no evidence was adduced by the applicant No.1. It is also contended that the non-applicant himself forced applicant No.1 to leave the matrimonial home and is not willing to reside with her peacefully and has not even visited or taken care of the applicants after the birth of applicant No.2. It is further submitted that there was sufÏcient cruelty and harassment by the non-applicant, constituting a valid ground for applicant No.1 to reside separately, which has been ignored by the learned Family Court. It is also argued that the findings of the learned Family Court are contradictory and perverse inasmuch as it has granted maintenance to applicant No.2 but denied the same to applicant No.1 despite the fact that the non- applicant is financially capable, having sufÏcient source of income, and was already directed to pay interim maintenance to both the applicants thus, the impugned order to the extent of denial of maintenance to applicant No.1 deserves to be set aside and suitably modified in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court concerned, it transpires that an amount of ₹3,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to applicant No. 2 (the son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the non- 5 applicant without just any and sufÏcient cause. In such circumstances, applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the non- applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufÏcient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal