1 2026:CGHC:5826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1308 of 2024 1 - Smt. Jhumaki Dewangan W/o Raju Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karaundamuda, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Tanishqua D/o Raju Dewangan, Aged About 03 Years And 6 Month Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Jhumaki Dewangan, W/o Raju Dewangan, R/o Village Karaundamuda, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Raju Dewangan S/o Late Vishwanath Dewangan Aged About 29 Years Caste Panika, R/o V.T.C. Colony, Charcha Colliery, Police Chowki Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Smt. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.45/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that applicant No.1 was legally married to the respondent on 10.03.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock two daughters, including applicant No.2, were born. Initially, the parties lived together peacefully as husband and wife. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, the respondent started subjecting the applicants to mental cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, due to which applicant No.1 was compelled to live separately in a rented house. The applicants pleaded that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is unable to meet household expenses, the education of the minor daughter, and medical expenses, whereas the respondent is a government employee working in SECL, Charcha Colliery, earning about Rs. 50,000/- per month. The respondent denied the allegations in his written statement. Upon hearing both parties, the 3 learned Family Court, by order dated 20.09.2024, granted maintenance of only Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicants, which is stated to be inadequate and contrary to the facts and law, leading to the filing of the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, oral evidence and documents produced by the applicants, and ignored the fact that applicant No.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and mental harassment inflicted by the respondent. The findings recorded regarding maintenance are thus perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law. She further submits that the learned Family Court has granted a meagre maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is wholly inadequate for the survival, livelihood and education of the applicants. The Court overlooked that the applicants have no independent source of income and are facing acute financial hardship, whereas the respondent is a salaried employee working in SECL, Charcha Colliery, earning about Rs. 50,000/- per month, and is fully capable of paying reasonable maintenance. She also submits that the learned Family Court further erred in assessing the income and financial capacity of the respondent and passed the impugned order without proper application of mind. The applicants, being legally entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and other 4 applicable laws, are suffering serious economic hardship due to the inadequate amount awarded. Hence, in the interest of justice, the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, 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 has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance, holding that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, that she has sufficient and justifiable reasons to live separately due to cruelty, dowry demands and the respondent’s relationship with another woman, and that the respondent, being employed in SECL, has sufficient means but has failed to maintain the applicant and the minor child. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 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. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil