1 2025:CGHC:40200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 721 of 2025 Smt Sonamati Pawale W/o. Sukhsagar Pawale, D/o. Pransai Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village - Jajawal, P.S. Chandora, Chowki - Jajawal, Dist. Surajpur, Current Address - Salka, Tahsil - Premnagar, P.S. Premnagar, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sukhsagar Pawale S/o. Ramadheen Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village - Jajawal, Chowki Chendra, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and the order dated 21/4/2025 may kindly be set-aside and kindly grant maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application filed before the learned Family Court Surajpur, Dist Surajpur C.G to the applicant, in the interest of justice..” 2. The brief facts of the case is that in 2014, the marriage between the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.13 15:03:33 +0530 2 parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals. Three children were born from this marriage. After the birth of their third child, disputes began to arise between the parties over minor issues. The non-applicant, under the influence of alcohol, would abuse and physically assault the applicant. He was involved in an illicit relationship with another woman and often doubted the applicant’s character. He wanted to expel her from the house and frequently brought a woman named Patikunwar to stay with him. The non- applicant also prevented the children from approaching the applicant. In October 2024, he publicly declared before the Panchayat that he no longer wished to live with the applicant. The applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Family Court, Surajpur (Misc. Cri. Case No. 235/2024), seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month. She stated that she had been thrown out of the house, had no source of income, and was unable to maintain herself. She claimed that the non-applicant owns around 6 acres of agricultural land where he cultivates paddy, wheat, and corn, earning Rs.3–4 lakh annually. She also alleged that he runs a tent business with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. 3. In his reply, the non-applicant admitted the contents of paragraphs 1 and 2 but denied the rest. He alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with his uncle’s son, Arvind, and that in October 2024 he caught them together. Following a family meeting, the applicant left the matrimonial home along with their children and went to her parents’ house. He also claimed that the agricultural land is jointly cultivated with his father and denied having any tent business. He 3 argued that the application should be dismissed. After examining the evidence and witness depositions, the Family Court, by order dated 21/04/2025, dismissed the applicant’s plea. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove valid grounds for living separately and was therefore not entitled to maintenance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has acted with material irregularity, and it would be unjust and improper to deny maintenance to the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant himself deserted the applicant. He publicly declared before the Panchayat that he did not wish to continue the marriage, based on false allegations. Since then, he has been residing with another woman. Therefore, the applicant is legally entitled to receive maintenance. The non-applicant alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with his brother-in-law, Arvind. However, this allegation was denied by the applicant during her deposition and remains unsubstantiated. The Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant has been cohabiting with another woman and has also taken the children away from the applicant. His actions are based solely on false and baseless accusations. In his own deposition, the non-applicant admitted that Arvind lived in the adjacent house and visited frequently as he was a relative. Furthermore, in paragraph 10 of his statement, the non-applicant admitted that a woman named Patikunwar had been residing with him for a week. This clearly indicates that it is the non-applicant who has been in an illicit relationship, not the applicant. The learned Trial 4 Court failed to appreciate that the contents of the applicant’s petition were supported by evidence and depositions. The Court erred in dismissing the application, despite the applicant being forced to live separately due to false allegations and mistreatment. She is, therefore, entitled to maintenance. The non-applicant has sufficient means to maintain the applicant but falsely claimed otherwise. He owns agricultural land and previously operated a tent business. The Court failed to consider that the applicant is residing with her elderly parents, who are unable to support her, thereby making it extremely difficult for her to sustain herself. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present 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 Preeti