1 2025:CGHC:45675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1102 of 2025 Ashok Chaturvedi S/o Laxmi Chaturvedi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kurankapa, PS Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sarita Chaturvedi W/o Ashok Chaturvedi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kurankapa, PS Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Present Address Gadaghat, PS Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.245/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 short ‘BNSS’) filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.05.2023 according to Hindu rituals. The respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 245/2024, alleging that shortly after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members subjected her to physical and mental harassment in connection with dowry demands, due to which she left her matrimonial home and claimed a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations, stating that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause, that she is an educated woman capable of maintaining herself, and that the applicant has no independent source of income. Despite this, the learned Family Court, after considering the materials and evidence on record, vide order dated 23.07.2025, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing the application, stating that it is the moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain herself. However, the Court failed to consider that the respondent is staying at her parental home without any justified 3 reason, and that the allegations of dowry harassment were not proved. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 is bad in law and facts, and is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause, despite the petitioner being willing to take her back, as evidenced by Exhibit A-1. The allegations of dowry harassment are false, baseless, and unsupported by any police complaint or evidence. Furthermore, the respondent failed to prove the applicant’s income, while it is an admitted fact that the applicant is a poor labourer with no fixed source of income. The Family Court erred in granting maintenance solely on the presumption of moral obligation, ignoring the legal requirement of desertion without sufficient cause. The order is contrary to settled principles laid down by higher courts and causes irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per 4 month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and is currently living separately due to sufficient cause, including allegations of dowry harassment and physical abuse. The Court noted that there is no proof that the husband is providing any financial support to the wife, who is unable to maintain herself due to poor health and lack of income. Although no concrete documentary evidence was presented regarding the husband's income, his own admission of doing occasional labor and past work in food sales indicates that he is capable of earning. Considering these facts, and in line with the legal principle that a husband has a moral duty to maintain his wife if she cannot maintain herself, the Family Court concluded that respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil