1 2026:CGHC:14403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 14 of 2025 Smt. Dolly Dewangan W/o Lukesh Dewangan Aged About 30 Years, D/o Teerath Ram Dewangan, R/o Dewangan Bada, Nutan Chowk, Bhilai -3, Tehsil - Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant versus Lukesh Dewangan S/o Bahur Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Bapu Nagar Khursipara, Ward No. 29, Near Jalaram Mandir, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani and Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.677/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was filed by the applicant/wife and directed the respondent/husband to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, Lukesh Dewangan. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2008 at Rajnandgaon in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. It is further submitted that soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members began subjecting the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.03.28 15:54:41 +0530 2 applicant to cruelty and harassment in connection with demands for dowry and other articles. The respondent is employed as a GDS in the South Eastern Central Railway and is earning approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per month, which is substantiated by documents submitted by the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant was subjected to continuous harassment on the grounds that she did not bring a four-wheeler as dowry and that she was unable to conceive a child. Due to such persistent cruelty, she was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home. Since 20.12.2017, the applicant has been residing separately at her parental home. On the same day, she lodged a complaint at Mahila Thana, Durg, detailing the acts of cruelty and harassment, which has been exhibited as Ex.P-1C. Thereafter, the applicant filed the present application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking adequate maintenance on the ground that the respondent has willfully neglected and refused to maintain her. 3. Upon receipt of summons, the respondent appeared before the learned trial Court and filed his written statement, denying all the allegations made in the application. After completion of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed two issues for adjudication. However, it is submitted that the learned Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record. The Court also ignored the admitted income of the respondent, who is employed with the Indian Railways. As per his own admission, his basic salary is approximately Rs.52,000/-, and with allowances, his total monthly income is Rs.1,53,482/-, as recorded in paragraph 43 of the impugned order. Despite these facts, the learned Court, without sufficient justification, awarded only Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, which is grossly inadequate. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 order dated 11.12.2024 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be modified. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant, which clearly establishes that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and willfully drove her out of the matrimonial home. That, the learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on the affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC by the respondent, wherein he introduced facts not pleaded in his written statement, and further failed to consider the material omissions and contradictions between the written statement and the affidavit. It is undisputed that the respondent is earning a monthly salary of Rs.1,53,482/-, as reflected in Ex.P-53 (salary slip for July 2018). The learned Family Court failed to properly consider Ex.P-38 to Ex.P-64, which are salary slips for various periods, and, despite clear evidence of substantial income, awarded only Rs.5,000/- as maintenance, which is grossly inadequate considering prevailing inflation. The learned Family Court failed to adequately consider that the respondent possesses family property, including agricultural land situated at Village Motipur, District Rajnandgaon, though reference to such facts has been made in paragraph 44 of the impugned order. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the respondent’s father is a retired officer from Bhilai Steel Plant, has received substantial retiral benefits, and continues to avail medical facilities, and that the respondent’s mother is not dependent upon him. It is undisputed that the respondent willfully neglected and refused to maintain the applicant, who has no independent source of income, while her father is also a retired employee. Despite the grant of interim maintenance, the respondent has failed to comply with the orders of the learned Court below and has defaulted in making regular payments, often paying at long intervals. 4 5. As per settled principles of law, a wife is entitled to a reasonable portion of her husband’s income. In the present case, considering that the respondent is earning approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per month, the applicant is entitled to maintenance of about Rs.50,000/- per month to sustain a dignified standard of living. Despite the respondent having sufficient income and no substantial liabilities, the learned Family Court, without assigning adequate reasons, awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance, which is wholly unjust and insufficient. The conduct of the respondent indicates that he is deliberately neglecting the applicant and attempting to coerce her into seeking divorce in order to facilitate his remarriage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order, pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti/Rajshekhar