1 CGHC010411932025 2026:CGHC:36272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1190 of 2025 Smt. Meera Dewangan W/o Neeraj Kumar Dewangan Aged About 40 Years Permanent Address- Shanti Para, Shyam Nagar, Bhilai-03 District Durg (C.G.) Present Address- Mahesh Colony, Near R.B.S. House, Pulgaon, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Neeraj Kumar Dewangan S/o Kalaram Dewangan, Aged About 43 Years R/o- Ward No. 05 Near Deshmukh Kirana Store, Gaya Nagar, Durg Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Advocate along with Mr. Saurabh Tamrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.727/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant got married on 01.01.2019 at Gayatri Parivar Management Committee Trust, Gayatri Mandir, Kasaridih, Durg, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant started residing at the matrimonial house of the non-applicant. It is alleged that after some time, the non-applicant and his family members started demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the applicant's parental home and upon her expressing inability to ful;l the said demand, subjected her to harassment and cruelty. It is further stated that when the applicant informed her mother about the said demand, her mother along with other family members visited the matrimonial house and tried to resolve the dispute, however, the non-applicant and his family members stated that the applicant would continue to be harassed until their demand was ful;lled. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born, who unfortunately died in a road accident on 11.08.2022. It is further alleged that during the said period, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the non-applicant came to the applicant's parental residence and allegedly obtained her signatures on divorce papers against her will, although the applicant was not willing to dissolve the marriage. It is further pleaded that the applicant has no independent source of income and is not capable of doing any work for her livelihood, whereas the non-applicant is working as an o>cer in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and is earning approximately Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the non-applicant possesses 3 tenancy/agricultural land situated at Village Nagpura, District Durg, from which he earns approximately Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and also owns houses situated at Village Dodi, District Balod and Gaya Nagar, Durg, from which he earns approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. It is further stated that both the parents of the non-applicant are pensioners and the non- applicant has no other person to maintain. Despite having su>cient means, the non-applicant has not been paying any amount towards the maintenance of the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant claimed maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month from the non- applicant before the Family Court. 3. The non-applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and ;led his reply denying the averments and allegations made by the applicant in the maintenance application. 4. After considering the pleadings and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2025, dismissed the application ;led by the applicant without awarding any amount towards maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in rejecting the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant/wife seeking maintenance. It is submitted that the applicant has no sufficient or independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the non-applicant is 4 employed as an officer in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and is earning approximately Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per month, apart from income from agricultural/tenancy land and residential properties. It is further submitted that the applicant was compelled to reside separately from the non-applicant on account of the cruelty and physical and mental harassment committed by the non-applicant and his family members and that, thereafter, the non-applicant made no efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and circumstances of the applicant, particularly her unemployment and inability to maintain herself and also failed to consider the financial condition of her family. It is contended that the learned Family Court has rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is a highly qualified woman and has also received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- towards motor accident compensation on account of the death of her child in a road accident and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. According to learned counsel, the said findings are contrary to the evidence and material available on record, as the applicant has no regular source of income and the compensation amount cannot be treated as a regular source of livelihood. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and the evidence on record and deserves to be set aside. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents could not meet the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure principally on the ground that she is a highly quali;ed woman having acquired Ph.D., UGC-NET and Chhattisgarh SET quali;cations and had worked as a lecturer/teacher in various institutions, including Ravi Shankar University, Raipur, Bharti College, Durg and Kalyan College, Bhilai. The learned Family Court has further taken into consideration that an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was deposited in the account of the applicant towards compensation received on account of the death of her son in a motor accident and that she maintains accounts in various banks. On these grounds, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant is physically ;t and capable of maintaining herself and therefore, is not entitled to maintenance from the non-applicant. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the impugned order and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the approach adopted by the learned Family Court in declining maintenance to the applicant cannot be sustained. Merely because the applicant is highly educated and possesses higher academic quali;cations, the 6 same by itself cannot be a ground to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant consideration is whether the applicant has a present and su>cient independent source of income enabling her to maintain herself in a manner commensurate with the status and circumstances of the parties. Educational quali;cation or past employment cannot be equated with actual present income or ;nancial independence, particularly when there is no cogent material to establish that the applicant is presently earning su>cient income to maintain herself. 10. This Court also ;nds substance in the submission that the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- received by the applicant as compensation on account of the accidental death of her son cannot be treated as a regular or recurring source of income for the purpose of determining her entitlement to maintenance. Such compensation is intended to compensate the loss suDered on account of the unfortunate death and merely because the said amount has been credited to the account of the applicant, it cannot be presumed that she has a permanent source of livelihood su>cient to disentitle her from claiming maintenance. Likewise, the mere existence of bank accounts in the name of the applicant does not establish that she has su>cient regular income to maintain herself. 11. At the same time, the ;nancial capacity and income of the non- applicant/husband are also relevant factors while determining the entitlement and quantum of maintenance. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the non-applicant is employed and is stated to be earning substantially more than the 7 applicant. The amount of maintenance has to be assessed keeping in view the prevailing cost of living, the standard of living and social status of the parties, the ;nancial capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate these relevant aspects in their proper perspective and has placed undue emphasis upon the educational quali;cations and receipt of compensation by the applicant. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for interference with the impugned order. The ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court that the applicant is capable of maintaining herself merely on the basis of her educational quali;cations, past employment and receipt of compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- is not su>cient to deny her statutory right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.727/2023 is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed with the following directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.727/2023 is hereby set aside. 8 (ii) The non-applicant/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to the applicant/wife towards maintenance with eDect from 01.09.2026, until she remarries or secures gainful employment, whichever is earlier. 14. With the aforesaid directions, the present criminal revision stands allowed. 15. O>ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the learned Family Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal