1 CGHC010240342026 2026:CGHC:28884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 860 of 2026 Smt. Aarti Dewangan W/o Shailendra Kumar Dewangan Aged About 41 Years Presently C/o Father Hemant Dewangan, Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil- Bhatapara District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Shailendra Kumar Dewangan Son Of Late Kamlakant Dewangan Aged About 42 Years Resident Of House No. 18/k, Ward No. 8, Hariom Nagar, Dongarganv, Tehsil - Dongarganv, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shiv Sewak, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the default, as pointed out by the Registry has been removed. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and: 1. Call for the records of Misc. Criminal Case No. 192/2025 from the Family Court, Baloda RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Bazar- Bhatapara; 2. Admit and allow this Revision; 3. Set aside / modify the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara in Misc. Criminal Case No. 192/2025, to the extent of the quantum of maintenance awarded and the date from which the enhanced amount is payable; 4. Direct the Non-Applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 11,825/- per month (being 25% of his net monthly salary of Rs. 47,300/-, or such higher amount as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper having regard to his total income from all sources) to the Revisionist with effect from the date of the application i.e. 02.07.2025; 5. Pending final hearing and disposal of this Revision, direct the Non-Applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the Revisionist from the date of this application; 6. Award the costs of this revision to the Revisionist; 7. Grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Applicant-wife and the Respondent-husband were married on 11.12.2020 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Prior to the marriage, the Respondent’s first wife had expired on 24.01.2020, leaving behind 3 two minor children. At the time of solemnization of marriage, the Respondent and his family assured the Applicant and her family that she would be treated as the lawful wife of the Respondent and would also be accepted as the mother of the two children born from the Respondent’s first marriage. However, after the marriage, the Applicant was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the Respondent and his mother, including repeated taunts relating to dowry, denial of her status as wife and mother, and other humiliating treatment. Efforts for reconciliation were undertaken before the Family Counselling Centre, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara in August, 2022 and December, 2023, and subsequently in a social meeting held on 31.03.2024, pursuant to which the parties resumed cohabitation. Despite such efforts, the conduct of the Respondent and his family did not improve, compelling the Applicant to leave the matrimonial home on 02.05.2024 and reside at her parental house situated at Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara. Thereafter, the Applicant initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, by order dated 22.02.2024, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in her favour with effect from 20.12.2023. 4. Subsequently, the Respondent instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being Civil Case No.150A/2025, before the Family Court, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was allowed by judgment and decree dated 19.12.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has preferred First Appeal (MAT) 4 No.105 of 2026 before this Hon’ble Court, which is presently pending consideration. During the pendency of the matrimonial dispute, and in view of the steep rise in inflation, increasing cost of living and recurring medical expenses incurred by the Applicant, supported by Exhibits P-03 to P-08, she filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. It was specifically pleaded that the Respondent is a Government Teacher drawing a net monthly salary of approximately Rs. 47,300/- and is also earning substantial additional income from his business and agricultural activities, taking his total monthly income to approximately Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,17,000/-. It was further brought on record that the Respondent is a co-owner of agricultural land admeasuring about 0.3065 hectares situated in Village Rudgaon, Tehsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. However, by the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount only from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and directed that the enhancement shall be payable from the date of the order. Being dissatisfied with the inadequate enhancement and the failure of the learned Family Court to properly appreciate the Respondent’s actual income and financial capacity, the Applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to only Rs.4,000/- per month, thereby 5 granting an increase of merely Rs.1,000/- despite the admitted financial capacity of the Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent is a Government Teacher drawing a net monthly salary of approximately Rs.47,300/- and that even 25% of his net salary would work out to about Rs.11,825/- per month. He further submits that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court constitutes less than 8.5% of the Respondent’s net salary and an even smaller fraction of his total monthly income, which is approximately Rs.1,12,000/- to Rs.1,17,000/- from all sources. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386, and Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 4 SCC 153, wherein it has been held that maintenance must be fair, realistic and sufficient to enable the wife to maintain a standard of living consistent with the status and financial capacity of the husband. It is contended that the impugned order fails to take into consideration the settled principles governing determination of maintenance and consequently results in an award which is wholly inadequate and contrary to law. 6. Learned counsel further submits that while assessing the financial capacity of the Respondent, the learned Family Court has considered only his salary income and has completely ignored his substantial earnings from other sources. It is submitted that apart from his government employment, the Respondent is deriving income from his shop/business and agricultural activities, generating approximately Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month in 6 addition to his salary. The Respondent is also a co-owner of agricultural land admeasuring approximately 0.3065 hectares situated at Village Rudgaon, Tehsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. Despite specific pleadings and evidence regarding such additional sources of income, the learned Family Court failed to properly assess the Respondent’s actual earning capacity. He submits that the Respondent did not place complete and accurate particulars of his assets, agricultural income and business income before the Court. In view of the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the Respondent for non-disclosure of his complete financial status. It is further contended that no Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, as contemplated by the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was obtained during the proceedings, resulting in an incomplete assessment of the Respondent’s true income and financial resources. 7. It is lastly submitted that the applicant had specifically placed on record medical prescriptions, treatment records and bills (Exhibits P-03 to P-08), demonstrating recurring medical expenses and deteriorating health conditions. However, the learned Family Court failed to adequately consider these expenses while determining maintenance. It is further contended that although the application seeking enhancement of maintenance was filed on 02.07.2025, the learned Family Court directed the enhanced amount to be payable only from the date of the impugned order, i.e., 13.02.2026, thereby depriving the Applicant of enhanced maintenance for the 7 intervening period. Such a direction is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), wherein it has been held that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application. He further submits that the decree of divorce dated 19.12.2025 passed in favour of the Respondent has already been challenged by the Applicant in F.A. (MAT) No. 105 of 2026, which is presently pending before this Hon’ble Court and has not attained finality. Therefore, the legal obligation of the Respondent to maintain the Applicant continues to subsist. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities and deserves to be modified by suitably enhancing the maintenance amount to a just, fair and reasonable figure commensurate with the Respondent’s actual income and financial capacity. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has passed a well- reasoned and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has taken into account the relationship between the parties, the financial status of the Respondent, the material placed on record regarding his income, as well as the needs and requirements of the Applicant. The Court has also considered the fact that the Applicant was already receiving maintenance pursuant to the earlier order 8 and, upon finding a change in circumstances, deemed it appropriate to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has duly appreciated the evidence led by both sides and has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of the material available before it. It is evident that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence. The impugned order reflects a judicious exercise of discretion and strikes a balance between the respective claims of the parties while awarding a reasonable enhancement in maintenance in accordance with the facts established on record. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan