Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
CGHC010286302026
2026:CGHC:32004
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 949 of 2026 Mukesh Dewangan S/o Shri Samliya Ram Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Tikripara, Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (Cg)
... Applicant versus Smt. Saraswati Dewangan W/o Shri Mukesh Dewangan, D/o Shri Sukhchand Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o New Shikshak Colony, Ward No. 18, In Front Of Sanskritik Bhawan, Tilda Neora, District- Raipur (Cg)
… Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
Order on Board 27.07.2026
1. 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 instant revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN
2 Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 836/2025, in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance along with interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. In the said application, it was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.05.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs and, thereafter, she started residing at her matrimonial home. The non-applicant alleged that after marriage, the applicant developed the habit of consuming liquor and other intoxicants and used to subject her to physical and mental cruelty, abuse her on account of insufficient dowry, and repeatedly humiliate her. It was further alleged that even during her pregnancy, she was subjected to continuous harassment and excessive household work, due to which she suffered a miscarriage and, thereafter, was left at her parental home, where she has been residing ever since. The non-applicant further averred that the applicant is running a Choice Centre, earning approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month therefrom, besides deriving income from ancestral properties and agricultural land, whereas she is a homemaker having no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The applicant contested the claim by submitting that no Choice Centre is registered in his name and that he is suffering from serious liver-related ailments, due to which he is incapable of undertaking
3 any gainful employment and is dependent upon his elder brother even for medical expenses. He further denied ownership of any agricultural or residential property and contended that the non- applicant is educated up to Class X, earns her livelihood through tailoring and beauty parlour work, and is residing separately without any sufficient cause.
After considering the pleadings, documents and material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 21.04.2026, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 17.07.2025, payable on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant. 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles governing grant of interim maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court has erred in law as well as on facts in awarding interim maintenance without there being any cogent material on record to establish that the applicant has sufficient independent income to pay the amount awarded. He submits that the allegations regarding the applicant running a Choice Centre, earning rental income from ancestral properties and deriving income from agricultural land are wholly unsubstantiated, unsupported by any documentary evidence and have been specifically denied by the applicant. It is further submitted that the
4 impugned order proceeds merely on assumptions and presumptions regarding the earning capacity of the applicant without recording any finding based on admissible evidence. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from serious liver-related ailments and has been undergoing continuous medical treatment, due to which he is presently incapable of undertaking any gainful employment. The medical documents placed on record clearly indicate that he is financially dependent upon his elder brother even for meeting his medical expenses.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant is argued that while determining interim maintenance, the learned Family Court failed to take into
consideration the physical incapacity and financial hardship of the applicant and also ignored the fact that he does not own any agricultural land, residential property or rental property as alleged by the non-applicant. He further submits that interim maintenance is required to be fixed after balancing the needs of the claimant with the actual paying capacity of the respondent and, in the absence of any proof regarding income, fixation of interim maintenance at Rs.7,000/- per month is arbitrary and excessive. It is also contended that the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself and is earning through tailoring and beauty parlour work, as specifically pleaded by the applicant, but the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Family Court. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Family Court has directed payment of interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application without assigning any reasons therefor, thereby imposing a substantial
5 financial liability upon the applicant despite his alleged medical condition and lack of income. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the material and documents placed on record, and the submissions advanced on their behalf, has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable order. The learned Family Court has taken into account the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the allegations made by the non-applicant regarding neglect and inability to maintain herself, as well as the defence raised by the applicant. The Court has also considered the rival contentions regarding the income and financial status of the parties and, upon a prima facie assessment of the material available at the interim stage, has awarded only a reasonable amount of Rs.7,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. It is well settled that while deciding an application for interim maintenance, a detailed inquiry into the disputed questions of fact is neither contemplated nor required, and the Court is only expected to form a prima facie opinion on the basis of the material placed before it. The learned Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and has struck a proper balance between the needs of the non-applicant and the objections raised by the applicant.
No patent illegality, perversity,
6 jurisdictional error or material irregularity is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan