1 2025:CGHC:41280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1007 of 2025 Kuldeep Vaishnav S/o Rajendra Das Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Chunkatta Ward No. 4, Post And Police Station- Utai, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Minakshi Vaishnav W/o Kudeep Vaishnav Aged About 26 Years R/o Kauadih, Police Station- Gidhpuri, Post- Vatgan, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Minor Priyanshu Vaishnav S/o Kuldeep Vaishnav Aged About 5 Months, Represented Through Mother Smt. Minakshi Vaishnav, R/o Kauadih, Police Station- Gidhpuri, Post- Vatgan, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 along with child filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance, before the learned Family Court, stating therein that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was performed on 22.04.2023 according to Hindu rites & rituals and after marriage, she went to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but after few days of marriage, the applicant and other in-laws family members subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Meantime, the non-applicant No. 1 became pregnant and she went to the house of her parent for delivery of child, where the non-applicant No. 2 was born. After delivery of child, the applicant brought the non-applicant in his house, where she lived for about 20 days and during this period, the applicant used to assault with her, due to which, she went to the house of her parent in the month of Sept. 2023 and since then she is living separately in her parental house. The applicant is a journalist and also holding agricultural land and despite having sufficient source of income, the applicant is not giving single penny towards maintenance of non-applicant No. 1 and her child, therefore she filed application for grant of maintenance. 3. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply to the maintenance application, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty. The non-applicant No. 1 herself left the house of applicant and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. The applicant has made several efforts to take back the non-applicant No. 1, but she 3 refused to live with the applicant. The applicant has also filed an application U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, where the counseling was conducted and the non-applicant No. 1 has refused to live with the applicant. The applicant is running a private news agency and hardly running his livelihood. The applicant has recently undergone surgery and the doctor has conducted operation of spinal bone and inserted steel rod, due to which, the applicant is taking regular treatment. The non-applicant No. 1 herself left the house of applicant and she is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance, hence her application be dismissed. 4. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an order dated 03.05.2025, whereby rejected the application of the non-applicant No.1 on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any sufficient cause she is residing separately therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount however, he finds it appropriate to grant maintenance to the child who is minor and thereby directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 till majority. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never subjected the non-applicant No. 1 to cruelty and he has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 herself left the house of applicant and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant 4 has made several efforts to take back the non-applicant No. 1, but she refused to live with the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has also filed an application U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, where the counseling was conducted and the non-applicant No. 1 has refused to live with the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has recently undergone surgery and the doctor has conducted operation of spinal bone and inserted steel rod, due to which, the applicant is taking regular treatment. The learned Family Court has allowed maintenance in favour of non-applicant No. 2 in higher side, which is not sustainable looking to the low income of the applicant. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of ₹4,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to non-applicant No. 2 (the son). At the same time, the application of applicant No. 1 (the wife) was rejected on the ground that she is living separately from the applicant/husband without just any sufficient reason. In such circumstances, non-applicant No. 1 is not entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. It appears that the learned Family Court, upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his dependent status and the 5 legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief in favor of non-applicant No. 1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be either erroneous or unjustified. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal