1 CGHC010264072026 2026:CGHC:28885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 862 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Pusauram Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 64, Opposite Bhikham Kirana Stores, Budhwari Bazar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Dewangan W/o Rakesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mandlor, Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Master Lokesh Dewangan Aged About 08 Years, Minor, Through His Natural Guardian And Mother, Res. No. 1 Smt. Geeta Dewangan R/o Village Mandlor, Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 /07/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1161/2025, whereby KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court has granted Rs. 7,000/- per month to the non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (minor) as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application, in the application under Section 144 of BNSS. 2. Brief facts, as emerging from the record are that the non-applicant No.1, in her original application, has pleaded that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 09.03.2016 at Mandlor in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It has been alleged that the applicant is running a Patanjali products shop. According to Non-applicant No.1, the applicant used to demand money from her for the purpose of expanding his business. It has further been alleged that during her pregnancy, the applicant used to kick her in the stomach and threaten to burn her by pouring gas on her. On 03.02.2017, non-applicant No.2 was born. It has also been alleged that the applicant used to assault non-applicant No.1 after locking the door and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incidents to anyone. It has further been pleaded that during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship between non-applicant No.1 and the applicant, a daughter was born on 11.06.2019. Owing to her ill health, she was provided medical treatment, however, she could not recover and ultimately died on 29.08.2019. It has been alleged that thereafter the applicant and his family members used to harass non-applicant No.1 by accusing her of causing the death of the child. It has further been alleged that the applicant's family owns a marriage hall at Birgaon. It has also been alleged that there are nine commercial shops situated in front of the marriage hall, from which 3 a monthly income of approximately Rs.2,00,000/- is derived. The applicant is running a Patanjali products shop from which he earns approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. It has also been alleged that there are six acres of agricultural land situated at Lalpur, Mandhar, yielding an annual income of approximately Rs.3,50,000/-. Besides this, the applicant owns a plot situated at Patharidih, Raipur, and the applicant and his family members also own a residential house at Birgaon, Raipur. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it has been pleaded that the applicant earns approximately Rs.3,00,000/- per month. It has further been pleaded that non-applicant No.1 is a housewife and has no independent source of income. Accordingly, she prayed for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per month for herself and non-applicant No.2. 3. In his reply, the applicant specifically denied the allegations made by the non-applicants. He pleaded that he had never assaulted or abused Non-applicant No.1. He further pleaded that he had always been ready and willing to keep non-applicant No.1 and their son with him and to discharge all his matrimonial obligations. The applicant further pleaded that non-applicant No.1 had voluntarily deserted him of her own free will without any sufficient or reasonable cause. He stated that he running only a small Patanjali products shop, where he merely purchased and sold Patanjali products, from which he earned approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant further pleaded that his family jointly owned approximately five acres of agricultural land, however, he did not derive any income therefrom. He also pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was 4 engaged in tailoring and embroidery work and earned approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. Lastly, he pleaded that non- applicant No.1 had, without his consent, without any justifiable reason and of her own free will, deserted him and gone to reside at her parental home. On these grounds, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application for interim maintenance. 4. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, vide order dated 15.04.2026, the learned Family Court concerned granted interim maintenance in favour of non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹7,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and ₹3,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2/minor, totaling ₹10,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application till final disposal of the case. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the material available on record. He contends that the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance merely on the basis of bald allegations made by the non-applicants without there being any prima facie documentary evidence to establish the applicant's alleged income or ownership of the marriage hall, commercial shops, agricultural land and other immovable properties. He further submits that despite the specific plea that the applicant is running only a small Patanjali products shop earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month, that the agricultural land, if any, is joint family property from which he derives no independent income and 5 that non-applicant No.1 is an educated and able-bodied lady earning by doing tailoring and stitching work, the learned Family Court has failed to consider the said material aspects while determining the quantum of interim maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant has always been ready and willing to keep non-applicant No.1 and the minor child with him and to discharge his matrimonial obligations, but the said aspect has also been ignored. He further contends that the impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind, as no cogent reasons have been assigned either for assessing the income and financial capacity of the parties, for determining the quantum of interim maintenance, or for directing payment from the date of the application. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/minor, totaling Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of application, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the non- 6 applicants are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. 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 concerned, I am of the view that the Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 10. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of BNSS, preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal