1 CGHC010169842025 2026:CGHC:36287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 587 of 2025 1 - Gangadevi Devangan W/o Shri Deepak Kumar Devangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Kharoud, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa Present Address - R/o Devangan Mohalla, Kuwan Chowk, Chandrapur, Tahsil - Dabhara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghritkumar Devangan S/o Deepak Devangan Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother No. 1 R/o Village - Kharoud, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa Present Address - R/o Devangan Mohalla, Kuwan Chowk, Chandrapur, Tahsil - Dabhara, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Deepak Kumar Devangan S/o Harishankar Devangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Sukulpara Near Water Tank Kharoud, Police Station - Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Pamgarh, Distt - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 2 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.86/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance, while rejecting the said application with respect to applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 21.05.2013 at Village Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in accordance with their social rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2 was born. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing and assaulting applicant No.1 on account of demand for dowry, including gold ornaments, motorcycle and gas cylinder, and threatened her with divorce and second marriage. Despite such harassment, applicant No.1 continued the matrimonial relationship for the sake of her child, however, on 19.08.2019 and 20.08.2019, the respondent again assaulted her, pursuant to which she informed the police through the 112 emergency service, and thereafter, on the respondent’s assurance and written undertaking before the police, she returned to her parental home along with applicant No.2. Subsequently, the respondent filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, pursuant to which applicant No.1 filed an application 3 under Section 125 CrPC in M.C.C. No.86/2022 before the learned Principal Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for applicant No.2, wherein interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- was granted vide order dated 11.10.2023. After recording the evidence, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month only in favour of applicant No.2, while rejecting the claim of applicant No.1 on the ground that she was already receiving maintenance in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and had allegedly not disclosed the said proceedings before the Court, hence, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence, particularly the fact that the respondent is residing separately from applicant No.2 without the consent or willingness of applicant No.1 and has not made any bona fide effort to restore the matrimonial relationship. She further submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of applicant No.1 mainly on the ground that she earns approximately Rs.10,000/- per month through tailoring work, without properly considering the actual financial condition, earning capacity and living expenses of the applicants. The mere possibility of earning through tailoring, particularly in a rural area, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient means to maintain herself. She also 4 submits that applicant No.1 is willing to return to her matrimonial home and resume cohabitation with the respondent, but the respondent has not made any genuine and bona fide effort to take her back and has approached her only for the purpose of compromise. Therefore, the applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance, and the impugned order, to the extent it rejects her claim, deserves to be set aside and appropriate maintenance ought to be awarded in her favour. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance, while rejecting the said application with respect to applicant No.1, holding that applicant No.1 failed to establish sufficient and justifiable cause for living separately from the respondent and had concealed the fact that she was already receiving Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The learned Family Court further found that applicant No.2 is the minor biological son of the respondent and 5 is entitled to maintenance, and considering his educational and other needs, the respondent's earning capacity and overall financial circumstances of the parties, awarded maintenance as aforementioned to applicant No.2 until attaining majority. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil