1 2025:CGHC:57503 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1430 of 2025 Smt. Siddhi Tamrakar W/o Suryamadi @ Lucky Tamrakar Aged About 33 Years R/o Gupta Chowk, Tamrakar Metal Dallirajhara, Tahsil Dondi District- Balod (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus Suryamadi @ Lucky Tamrakar S/o Shiv Kumar Tamrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Thankhamhariya P.S. And Tahsil Thankhamhariya District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and set aside the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Balod in M.J.C. No. 240/2024 in case of 'Smt. Siddhi Tamrakar Vs. Suryamadi @ Lucky Tamkrakar', and further be pleased to granted RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 25,000/- as maintenance in every month to the applicant from the respondent, in the interests of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant 7led an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Balod (MJC-240/2024), stating that she married the respondent on 30.04.2015 at Village Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and subsequently resided with him and his parents. From the wedlock, a son, Prayag Tamrakar, was born on 30.11.2016, who continues to reside with the father. The applicant alleged that the respondent subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, including doubts on her character, prompting her to approach the Sakhi Center on 01.05.2024, following which it was decided that she would reside with her maternal home at Dallirajhra, while the child remained with the father. The applicant further claimed that she was unable to maintain herself and sought maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, asserting that the respondent earns Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- daily from tractor and trolley repair and welding work. The respondent appeared, denied all allegations, contended that the applicant deserted the matrimonial home without su>cient cause, and disclosed a pending application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. 94A/2024) at Family Court, Bemetara, stating he is willing to cohabit with the applicant. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court dismissed the maintenance application, holding that the applicant failed to prove cruelty and has been residing 3 separately for over three years without su>cient cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the documents and evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including Exhibits P-7 to P-11, which clearly establish mental and physical cruelty committed by the respondent and his parents, necessitating the applicant’s residence at her maternal home after mediation at the Sakhi Center. The learned court erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the applicant lived separately without su>cient cause, ignoring that the applicant had no alternative due to the respondent’s cruelty. Furthermore, maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women and children, in line with Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution, and provides a fundamental right and natural remedy for deserted wives to secure food, clothing, and shelter. The court also erred in placing the onus on the applicant to prove the respondent’s income, despite clear evidence that he is engaged in welding and tractor/trolley repair work, thereby committing a grave legal error in denying maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Balod, has rightly dismissed the applicant’s maintenance application under Section 144 of the BNSS. The court correctly held that the applicant failed to establish any mental or physical cruelty by the respondent and has been residing separately at her maternal home for over three years without su>cient cause. The respondent had also disclosed a pending application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bemetara, and expressed willingness to resume marital life. The long period of voluntary separation by the applicant, the Family Court’s conclusion in rejecting the maintenance claim is lawful, proper, and in accordance with the provisions of social justice and the statutory framework. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity 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 copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan