1 2026:CGHC:5116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1486 of 2025 Parth Dewangan S/o Sushil Kumar Dewangan Aged About 5 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Bhuvneshwari Dewangan, Aged About 34 Years, D/o Pardeshi Dewangan, R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Hathri Bazar, Champa, Police Station And Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sushil Kumar Dewangan S/o Dinesh Dewangan Aged About 41 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Camp-2, In Front Of Janta School, Bhilai Power House, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 209/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the amount of Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, is that is an admitted fact that the applicant’s mother, namely Smt. Bhuvneshwari Dewangan, and the non-applicant were PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.30 09:45:43 +0530 2 married on 09.02.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Village Champa. From their wedlock, a son, namely Parth Dewangan (the applicant), was born and is presently residing with his mother. The applicant, Parth Dewangan, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, stating inter alia that shortly after the marriage, the non- applicant started creating disputes. The non-applicant and his family members allegedly subjected the applicant’s mother to cruelty, harassment, and domestic violence on account of dowry demands. Due to such cruelty, she had to deliver her child at her parental home in Champa. On 01.12.2019, the non-applicant abandoned her without any cause and subsequently obtained a decree of divorce. It was further stated that the non-applicant neither contacted the applicant nor made any arrangements for the maintenance of the applicant and his mother. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant is employed as an Operator at Bhilai Steel Plant and earns a monthly salary of ₹67,203/- along with occasional bonuses. The applicant’s mother is employed as a nurse and, due to her work obligations, has engaged an attendant to take care of the minor applicant. The applicant is presently studying in KG-I at Manka Public School, Champa. The school fee is ₹21,900/- and the school bus charges are ₹13,900/-. Including expenses towards school uniform and other necessities, the total monthly expenditure is approximately ₹30,000/-. It was also stated that the applicant’s mother intends to open a recurring deposit account in a nationalized bank for the applicant’s future. Accordingly, maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month was sought on behalf of the applicant. 3. The non-applicant filed his reply and, apart from the admitted facts, denied the remaining allegations. He contended that after marriage, the 3 applicant’s mother resided with him for only 18 days and thereafter returned to her parental home. He alleged that she frequently abused him and his family members and insisted that he live separately from his aged parents. It was further contended that at the time of marriage, it was agreed that the applicant’s mother would seek transfer of her job to his place of posting, which she failed to do. The non-applicant also alleged that the applicant’s mother filed a domestic violence case against him and his family members at Champa and has prevented him from meeting the applicant. The learned Family Court, Janjgir, by order dated 22.11.2025, awarded a meagre maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month to the applicant, despite the non-applicant being employed at Bhilai Steel Plant and earning a monthly salary of ₹67,203/-. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the amount of maintenance awarded is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the settled principles of law, and against the facts and evidence available on record. The same therefore deserves to be enhanced in the interest of justice. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month is wholly insufficient to meet even the basic necessities of the minor applicant, including food, education, medical expenses, clothing, and transportation, particularly in view of the prevailing price rise and inflation. The impugned order thus defeats the very object of granting maintenance to a minor child. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the actual educational expenses of the minor applicant, which include school fees, transportation charges, books, uniforms, and other incidental expenses, collectively exceeding ₹20,000/- per year. The meagre maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month does not cover even a fraction of these expenses. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the minor applicant is entitled to live a life of dignity 4 and reasonable comfort commensurate with the status, lifestyle, and financial capacity of the non-applicant, who is a permanent employee of a public sector undertaking and enjoys multiple service benefits. The learned Family Court also failed to appreciate that the non-applicant has deliberately suppressed his true income by not disclosing his complete service benefits, incentives, bonuses, allowances, and additional income from land and ancestral properties, thereby misleading the Court and adversely affecting the rights of the minor applicant. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without due consideration of the welfare, education, and future prospects of the minor applicant, which are the paramount considerations in matters relating to maintenance of children. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti