Mahesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Reshamlal Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Ashok Nagar v. Vihan Dewangan S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1354 of 2024 Mahesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Reshamlal Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Ashok Nagar Sarkanda, Saraswati Colony, Infront of D.L.S. College, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vihan Dewangan S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 2
Legal Reasoning
Years (Minor - Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gopika Dewangan W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Dewangan) --- R/o Raza City, Street No. 1, House No. 2, Gokul Nagar, Mathpariya, Tikarapara, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.24 17:30:07 +0530 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel, appearing for Respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: 2 “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure-A/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “son”), through his natural guardian, mother Smt. Gopika Dewangan, has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Along with the said application, the mother (wife of the non-applicant) also filed an application for interim maintenance, submitting that the applicant married her on 04.02.2018, and out of their wedlock, one child—i.e., the present respondent—was born on 10.02.2022. After the birth of the child, the respondent was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, and his treatment is ongoing, with all medical expenses being borne by his mother. The respondent’s mother has taken a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs for his treatment. It was further submitted that the applicant has a gambling habit and has spent large sums of money on gambling. In April 2023, the applicant left the respondent and his mother and began residing in Bilaspur without informing them. Therefore, the she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with an application for interim maintenance, seeking Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant filed his reply to the above-said applications, denying the allegations made against him. He submitted that the application 3 was filed on false grounds merely to claim maintenance from him. It was also submitted that the respondent’s mother is employed as a Principal Staff Nurse and draws a monthly salary of Rs. 70,000/-. He contended that she is residing separately from him out of her own free will and without any sufÏcient cause, and that she is financially capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, he prayed for the rejection of the application. 5. The learned Family Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both parties, vide its impugned order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the wife on behalf of the son, and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, invalid, contrary to law and procedure, and suffers from illegality and perversity. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant had submitted that the his wife is working as a Principal Staff Nurse and earning a salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month, due to which the amount of interim maintenance granted to the child, i.e., Rs. 7,000/-, is excessive and, therefore, liable to be set aside or reduced. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the overall status of the family while awarding interim maintenance, which it failed to do. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the wife left the applicant’s home of her own free will and volition, and hence 4 she is not entitled to claim any maintenance in her own favour. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the wife has not raised any sufÏcient or legally valid grounds in her application for maintenance, and such grounds require proper proof. The applicant is not at fault, and it is the wife who left the matrimonial home voluntarily. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife is earning a salary of Rs. 70,000/- per month, a fact that was brought to the Court’s attention but not taken into consideration. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant (husband) made sincere efforts to bring the wife and child back to the matrimonial home, but the wife made false allegations against him. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant wishes to cohabit with his wife, but the wife has refused to resume conjugal life. The husband had already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights prior to the wife’s filing of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He also submits that the wife of the applicant has also filed an application under Sections 12, 19, and 20 of the Domestic Violence Act against the present applicant. The parents of the applicant are elderly and suffering from various age-related ailments, and the responsibility of their care also lies upon the present applicant. The applicant reserves his right to raise additional grounds and to file further documents at the time of hearing of the case. For the reasons stated above, among
Decision
others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 371 of 2024 vide order dated 17.10.2024. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek