Pawan Singh vs Smt. Durga
2026 Latest Caselaw 1200 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Pawan Singh vs Smt. Durga on 1 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                  1




                                                                 2026:CGHC:15108
                                                                                  NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                       CRR No. 436 of 2026

            Pawan Singh S/o Vishwanath Aged About 38 Years R/o Village-
            Semardarri Jamunahipara, Police Station And Tahsil- Marwahi, District
            Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Applicant
                                               versus
            Smt. Durga W/o Pawan Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Bundeli,
            Police Station- Jhagrakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- M.C.B.
            (C.G.)
                                                                      ... Non-applicant

            For Applicant            : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate

                            Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                         Order on Board
            01.04.2026

            1.

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the

following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

allow the revision and further be pleased to

set-aside/reduce the impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN 09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Digitally signed by RAHUL learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, DEWANGAN

District - M.C.B. (C.G.) in Miscellaneous

Criminal Case No. 199/2025, in the interest of

justice."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant/wife filed

an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, stating that her marriage with the

applicant/husband was solemnized about 14 years ago at Village

Bundeli, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District M.C.B. (C.G.), and

after marriage she resided at her matrimonial home; however, for

the last three years, the applicant allegedly started abusing and

assaulting her under the influence of alcohol, and despite

complaints made to Police Station Marwahi and intervention by the

Gram Panchayat, his behavior did not improve, and in the year

2023, she was allegedly beaten and driven out of the matrimonial

home, since when she has been residing with her father. The non-

applicant further claimed that the applicant earns approximately

Rs.20,000/- per month from vegetable business and also has

agricultural income from about 12 acres of land, and sought

maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month. The applicant, in his reply,

denied all allegations of cruelty, addiction, and income, contending

that the non-applicant left the matrimonial home on her own under

the influence of her relatives, that he is willing to keep and maintain

her, and that he does not possess the alleged income or property,

stating that only about one acre of land stands in the name of his

mother. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court

awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the non-applicant,

which is stated to be excessive by the applicant. Being aggrieved

by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order

dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family

Court is illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law, and

therefore liable to be set aside or suitably reduced. It is contended

that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the

facts and evidence on record, inasmuch as the non-applicant has

not produced any cogent or reliable evidence to substantiate the

allegations of cruelty, assault or habitual intoxication against the

applicant, and the findings have been recorded merely on the basis

of uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations without any

independent witness or documentary proof. It is further submitted

that the learned Family Court has erred in not considering that the

applicant had expressed his willingness to keep and maintain the

non-applicant, however, she has been residing separately without

any justifiable cause, thereby disentitling herself from claiming

maintenance. She further submits that the Court below has failed to

assess the actual financial capacity of the applicant, as there is no

material on record to establish that the applicant earns Rs.20,000/-

per month or owns 12 acres of agricultural land, and in fact, the

agricultural land stands in the name of his mother, from which the

applicant derives no independent income. It is also submitted that

the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of

pleadings and evidence and without due consideration of the

applicant's financial condition, resulting in fixation of an excessive

and arbitrary amount of maintenance, hence, the impugned order

being contrary to law and facts on record, deserves to be set aside

or suitably modified by this Hon'ble Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the

learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and

evidence adduced by both the parties and has passed a well-

reasoned and justified order. The allegations made by the non-

applicant/wife regarding cruelty, assault and neglect by the

applicant/husband, coupled with the fact that she has been residing

separately since the year 2023, were duly taken into consideration

by the Court below, and there is nothing on record to show that she

is living separately without sufficient cause. The learned Family

Court has also appropriately assessed the financial capacity of the

applicant and, instead of granting the higher amount as claimed,

has awarded a reasonable and modest sum of Rs.3,000/- per

month towards maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive

by any stretch of imagination. The impugned order thus reflects

proper application of judicial mind, is based on sound reasoning.

6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for

the applicant 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.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court

concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan