1 2026:CGHC:27194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 773 of 2026 1 - Smt. Neha Dewangan W/o Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10 Laxmi Nagar Supela Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jayansh Dewangan S/o Vineet Raj Dewangan Aged About 3 Years Through Under The Guardianship/ Patronage Of Neha Dewangan/ Applicant No. 01), R/o House No. 6/a, Ward No. 10 Laxmi Nagar Supela Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Vineet Raj Dewangan S/o Yashwant Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 414, Ward No. 1, Gond Gali Nayapara, P.S. Kotwali Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /07/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.03.2026 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC Criminal Case No.1113/2023, whereby 2 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 was married to the non-applicant on 07.05.2017 at Bhilai, District Durg, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. The elder child, Kunjal Dewangan, born on 24.03.2018, is presently residing with the non- applicant, while the younger child, born on 18.02.2023, is residing with applicant No. 1. It is the case of the applicants that, after the marriage, the non-applicant and his family members subjected applicant No. 1 to mental and physical cruelty, abused her on account of her poor family background, and restricted her from maintaining relations with her parental family. Despite intervention through a community meeting, the alleged harassment continued. The applicant further alleged that the non-applicant was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman and, whenever she questioned him about the same, she was assaulted and abused. It is further alleged that in November 2022, the non-applicant's brother assaulted the applicant's father, leading to registration of an FIR, after which the harassment intensified and the applicant was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home during her second pregnancy. Since December 2022, applicant No. 1 has been residing at her parental home along with the younger child, whereas the elder child has remained in the custody of the non-applicant. According to 3 the applicants, despite having sufficient income, the non-applicant failed to maintain applicant No. 1 and the younger child, compelling them to institute proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance. During the maintenance proceedings, both parties adduced evidence by filing affidavits and were cross-examined. The applicants relied upon documentary evidence, including the FIR lodged against the non- applicant's brother and the interim order passed by the Family Court, to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and neglect. The applicants further contend that the non-applicant admitted during his cross- examination that he was unwilling to keep applicant No. 1 with him. It is also alleged that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is inadequate and that the non-applicant has failed to pay the maintenance regularly, thereby prejudicing the livelihood of applicant No. 1 and the welfare of the minor child. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the non-applicant's financial capacity, despite the Income Tax Returns reflecting substantial annual income and the allegation that he also earns income from his sole proprietorship concern, Baba Banjari Auto Parts and Training. It is further contended that the Court ignored the non-applicant's assets, properties and overall financial status while determining the maintenance amount. He 4 further submits that the Family Court failed to consider that applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income and is residing with her parents along with the younger child, who is only about three years old and requires proper care, nourishment and medical attention. The applicants also contend that the non-applicant has refused to reside with applicant No. 1, as admitted in his cross-examination, and has neglected to maintain the applicants despite having sufficient means. He also submits that the maintenance awarded is grossly inadequate and does not enable them to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the non-applicant. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to apply the settled principles governing grant of maintenance, including consideration of the husband's income, assets, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and therefore the impugned order warrants enhancement of the maintenance amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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 applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance, holding that applicant No.1 was residing separately from the respondent for sufficient cause, as the respondent himself did not express willingness to keep her with him and had neglected to maintain her. The Family Court further 5 held that the elder son, being in the custody of the respondent, was not entitled to maintenance, whereas applicant No.1 and the younger son were entitled to claim maintenance. However, as the applicants failed to produce cogent documentary evidence regarding the respondent's alleged higher income from his garage business and property dealings, the Court assessed the maintenance at Rs.3,000/- each to applicant No.1 and applicant No.2, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil