1 2026:CGHC:2785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 369 of 2023 Chetan Janghel S/o Dhansai Janghel Aged About 37 Years R/o Arya Nagar Kohka Supela, Shitla Talab, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Mongra Janghel W/o Chetan Janghel Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 70, Ward No. 7, Arya Nagar Kohka Supela, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Dushika Janghel D/o Chetan Janghel Aged About 11 Years Minor And Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Mongra Janghel, R/o House No. 70, Ward No. 7, Arya Nagar Kohka Supela, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Yamini Janghel D/o Chetan Janghel Aged About 9 Years Minor And Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Mongra Janghel, R/o House No. 70, Ward No. 7, Arya Nagar Kohka Supela, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Dishita Janghel D/o Chetan Janghel Aged About 7 Years Minor And Through Natural Guardian Their Mother Smt. Mongra Janghel, R/o House No. 70, Ward No. 7, Arya Nagar Kohka Supela, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants, being the wife and minor children, filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance. It is an admitted fact that non-applicant No.1, Smt. Mongra Janghel and the applicant, Chetan Janghel, are legally wedded wife and husband, whose marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock three daughters namely non-applicant No.2 Ku. Dushika, non-applicant No.3 Ku. Yamini and non-applicant No.4 Ku. Dishita were born, all of whom are residing with their mother, non-applicant No.1. The case of the non-applicants is that soon after the marriage the applicant and his family members started harassing and abusing non-applicant No.1 for demand of dowry and, on account of non- fulfilment of such demand, an attempt was even made to kill her by strangulation, which compelled her to lodge a complaint before the Women Cell, Rajnandgaon, where counselling was conducted and the applicant admitted his mistake and tendered apology; however, after some time, the harassment again resumed, due to which the non-applicant No.1 was forced to leave the matrimonial house and 3 since the year 2013 she has been residing at her parental home along with the minor daughters. It is further stated that the applicant has neither maintained the non-applicant No.1 nor made any arrangement for the maintenance and education of non-applicant Nos.2 to 4, and the entire responsibility of their upbringing, education and maintenance is being borne by non-applicant No.1, incurring expenses of about Rs.15,000/- per month. It is alleged that the applicant is working as a contractor in Bhilai Steel Plant earning about Rs.20,000/- per month and is also the owner of agricultural land measuring about 8 acres situated at Village Bortara, from which he earns approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, and therefore the non-applicants prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. The applicant filed reply, while denying the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand except the admitted facts, contended that non- applicant No.1 has kept the keys of the whole house and also kept the smart card of the applicant. He is suffering from a serious head ailment requiring treatment and surgery, due to which he is not capable of doing any work and is unable to pay maintenance, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. 4. The learned Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), after considering the pleadings and evidence, passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the non-applicants, hence the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order 4 dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 856/2019 is illegal, perverse and suffers from procedural irregularity, and therefore is liable to be set aside. By the said order, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month in their favour, without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. It is submitted that the applicant is suffering from a serious medical condition, namely a lump in his head, for which he requires treatment and surgery that cannot be undertaken without his smart card and due to the said ailment he is not capable of doing any work and is unable to earn or pay the awarded maintenance. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 is a young and educated lady, capable of gainful employment, and her parents are also financially capable of maintaining the non-applicants. Despite these material facts, the learned Family Court mechanically passed the impugned order, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, and hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 15000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the judgment on 30.11.2022, whereby directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/-per month towards maintenance amount 5 to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/-per month to the Non- applicant Nos.2 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the Non-applicant No.3 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.4 because non- applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are minor ( total 7500/- per month as maintenance) and while passing the said order, the learned Family Court, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted above as maintenance to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on a higher side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal