1 2026:CGHC:8044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 171 of 2026 Prashant Diwan S/o Shri Laxmidhar Diwan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bhatapara Balodabazar (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Neelam Diwan W/o Shri Prashant Diwan Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 1348/g, Near House Of Vikram Pandit, Kailash Nagar, Post- Kumhari, Tahsil- Dhamdha, Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Krishna Diwan S/o Shri Prashant Diwan Aged About 3 Years Through His Natural Guardian His Mother Smt. Neelam Diwan, W/o Shri Prashan Diwan, R/o House No. 1348/g, Near House Of Vikram Pandit, Kailash Nagar, Post- Kumhari, Tahsil- Dhamdha, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the CR. M.J.C. .No.549/2021 and after its perusal allow this Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in the case of (Smt. Neelam Diwan and another Vs Prashant Diwan) by the Family Court, Durg in Misc. Cr. Case No. 549/2021, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 @led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant, alleging that the applicant–husband treated her with cruelty, deserted her, threw her out of the matrimonial house, demanded dowry and subjected her to mental and physical torture. The non-applicant No.1 @led the said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, stating that the marriage between the applicant and non- applicant No.1 was solemnized on 09.07.2016 as per their religion and customs. Out of the wedlock, one male child (non-applicant No.2) was born in the year 2018, who is residing with non-applicant No.1. It has been further stated in the application that at the time of marriage, the father of non-applicant No.1 gave gold and silver ornaments and cash and that approximately Rs.5,00,000/- was spent on the marriage. It is alleged that thereafter the applicant and his family members demanded dowry and started torturing non- applicant No.1, and their behaviour towards her was not proper. It has further been pleaded that after marriage, non-applicant No.1 resided with the applicant and during that period, the applicant and 3 his relatives demanded dowry and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. It is also alleged that proper medical treatment was not provided to her at the time of delivery of non- applicant No.2. It is also stated in the application that the applicant abused non-applicant No.1 and her parents and although in family and social meetings he expressed willingness to keep her as his wife, thereafter the applicant and his family members did not cooperate with her and continued to torture her physically and mentally. Ultimately, non-applicant No.1 was deserted and thrown out of the matrimonial house. It has been further pleaded that the applicant is working as a representative under Shivratan Sharma (MLA) and is earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the applicant owns four houses, out of which three are on rent and is receiving rental income. His father is employed in the Police Department and is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further alleged that the applicant’s family owns agricultural land and is engaged in agricultural activities. On these grounds, the non- applicants prayed before the Family Court that maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month be granted in their favour. 4. The applicant @led his reply to the said application and denied all the averments made by the non-applicant No.1. He stated that non- applicant No.1 is residing at her parental house and that neither he nor his family members ever tortured her or demanded dowry. The applicant further stated that he incurred expenses at the time of the birth of non-applicant No.2. According to the applicant, non- applicant No.1 voluntarily chose to reside at her parental house and 4 used to humiliate and dominate him. He submitted that he always supported her and never threw her out of the house. The applicant expressed his willingness to keep non-applicant No.1 with him, but she refused to return. He further stated that he made several eForts to bring her back, but she declined. He alleged that non-applicant No.1 treated him with cruelty, failed to discharge her marital obligations and threatened to implicate him in false criminal cases. He prayed that the application has been @led only to harass him and deserves to be dismissed before the learned Family Court. 5. The applicant also @led an aGdavit disclosing his family background and details of his movable and immovable properties. The applicant stated that he is not employed in any government job and has no suGcient source of income. It is further stated that non-applicant No.1 is living separately without suGcient cause and, therefore, the non-applicants are not entitled to maintenance. The applicant @nally prayed before the Family Court that the application for grant of maintenance @led by the non-applicants be dismissed, as non- applicant No.1 is not willing to reside with him. The applicant also stated that his mother, aged about 56 years, is dependent upon him. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 01.12.2025, whereby the application @led by the non-applicants was partly allowed and maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was granted to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2 from the date of 5 application i.e. 15.07.2021, totaling Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, illegal and bad in law. It is contended that non-applicant No.1 is residing separately from the applicant without any suGcient or reasonable cause, despite the applicant’s consistent stand that he was always ready and willing to keep her as his legally wedded wife; therefore, in absence of just cause for separate residence, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not have been granted. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly shifted the burden upon the applicant, whereas it was incumbent upon the non-applicants to prove neglect or refusal on his part. The impugned order is stated to be based on conjectures and assumptions regarding the income of the applicant without any documentary evidence and no clear @nding has been recorded with respect to his actual income or source of livelihood. The Family Court has allegedly ignored the aGdavit and evidence @led by the applicant, wherein he speci@cally stated that he is not in government service and has no @xed or substantial source of income and has also failed to consider that his aged mother is dependent upon him. It is further contended that maintenance has been awarded from the date of application without recording special reasons and that the quantum @xed is excessive and disproportionate to his @nancial capacity. According to him, the impugned order suFers from material irregularity and jurisdictional 6 error, is contrary to the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice; hence, the same is liable to be set aside or suitably modi@ed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application @led under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 4000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.2/son from the date of @ling of application (Total Rs. 9000/- per month). Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted above to the non-applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and @nding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. OGce is directed to send a certi@ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal