1 2026:CGHC:5777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1129 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shalu Dewangan W/o Shri Hemlal Dewangan Aged About 39 Years Resident Of C/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Kanwar Para Ward No. 03, Near Bargad Ghat Champa District Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) Pin- 495671 2 - Ku. Uma Kumari Dewangan (Minor) D/o Shri Hemlal Dewangan Aged About 17 Years Through Mother Resident Of C/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Kanwar Para Ward No. 03, Near Bargad Ghat Champa District Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh) Pin- 495671 3 - Ku. Khusbu Dewangan (Minor) D/o Shri Hemlal Dewangan Aged About 12 Years Through Mother Resident Of C/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Kanwar Para Ward No. 03, Near Bargad Ghat Champa District Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh) Pin- 495671 4 - Master Khilesh Dewangan (Minor) S/o Shri Hemlal Dewangan Aged About 12 Years Through Mother Resident Of C/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Kanwar Para Ward No. 03, Near Bargad Ghat Champa District Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh) Pin- 495671 ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Hemlal Dewangan S/o Chhattelal Dewangan Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Raksa Pali, Thana Bhupdevpur, Tehsil Kharsia, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Pin- 496661 ... Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicants : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and set aside the impugned order dated 25/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Miscl. Criminal Case No. 550/2024 in case of 'Smt. Shalu Dewangan & Others Vs Shri Hemlal Dewangan', by allowing revision and Rs. 20,000/- be granted in total for all 4 applicants, along with Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation costs in the interests of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are their unmarried minor daughters and applicant No. 4 is their minor son, and the applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, inter alia, pleading that the marriage between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 05.05.2005 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Champa, Chhattisgarh, and that they lived together as husband and wife for about 14 years after marriage, during which two daughters and one son were born out of their wedlock. It was alleged that the non- applicant habitually consumed alcohol, physically assaulted the wife, taunted her regarding cooking, levelled false allegations of an 3 illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, complained about insufÏcient dowry and used filthy and abusive language towards her and her father. It was further stated that on 10.12.2019, when the applicant/wife requested the non-applicant to visit a Mela near Village Temar, Shakti, he initially agreed but later refused, saying it would cost too much money, started abusing her and left the house; thereafter, the applicant/wife went to the Mela with her three children and after some time the non-applicant, in an intoxicated condition, reached there, abused her publicly, questioned her character, stated that he would not keep her with him and consequently she went to the house of her sister Vandana Dewangan at Village Temar, who informed their father about the incident. It is further pleaded that without any sufÏcient cause the non-applicant neglected and refused to maintain the applicant/wife and the minor children, refused to bear their educational expenses, and treated her with cruelty, compelling her to file the maintenance application. Therefore, she filed an application for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court. 3. Upon which, notice was issued to the non-applicant, but he refused to accept the same and therefore ex parte proceedings were initiated, the applicant/wife specifically pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and her three children and that the non-applicant is working as a food contractor earning approximately ₹30,000/- per month. 4. After appreciating the evidence led by the applicant/wife and documents available on record, vide order dated 25.09.2024, the 4 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the non-applicant to pay ₹1,500/- per month to applicant No. 1 and ₹500/- per month each to the three children, totaling ₹3,000/- per month from the date of the order, along with ₹500/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 1, being the legally wedded wife, is educated only up to 10th standard and has no fixed or independent source of income, yet she has to meet essential expenses such as house rent, clothing, groceries, medical treatment, and other day-to-day necessities and is therefore unable to maintain herself and is entirely dependent upon the non-applicant/husband for financial support. It is further submitted that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are minor children who are presently studying in school, and their expenses include clothing, food, books, stationery, medical care and other basic and daily needs and they too are completely dependent on the non-applicant/father. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the maintenance awarded vide order dated 25.09.2024 is grossly inadequate and on the lower side, as it is practically impossible for four persons to sustain themselves on a total sum of ₹3,000/- per month. It is a settled principle of law that it is the bounden duty of the father to maintain his minor children and the daughters and son are legally entitled to claim maintenance from their father so that they may live with dignity and meet their basic requirements of food, clothing, and shelter. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court did not properly consider the various 5 judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been consistently held that the wife and minor children are entitled to reasonable maintenance from the husband and father, sufÏcient to ensure that they do not suffer deprivation of their essential needs. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1,500/- per month to applicant No. 1 and ₹500/- per month each to the three children, totaling ₹3,000/- per month from the date of the order, along with ₹500/- towards litigation expenses. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 6 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant/wife along with three children. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal