1 2025:CGHC:57502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1431 of 2025 Smt. Manisha Sahu W/o Deepak Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post- Khundni, Tahsil- Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Teku Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post- Khundni, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod, C.G. , Present Address- Plot No. - 105 Nagavalli Block Vedanta Medose Jharsuguda, District : Jharsuguda, Orissa. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and pass the following relief's as under:- 1. Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this revision by amending the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the learned RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court Dhamtari in the Misc. Criminal case no. 190/2025 parties being "Smt. Manisha Sahu Vs. Deepak Kumar Sahu" to the extend to enhance the maintenance amount at Rs. 25,000/- per month, in the interest of justice. 2. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass order by allowing this revision direct the respondent to pay the maintenance amount from the date of application/petition under section 144 of BNSS dated 01.03.2025, in the interest of justice” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 01.07.2021 as per Hindu rites at Village Palari, District Balod (C.G.). The applicant 4led an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, alleging mental and physical cruelty, lack of support, and illicit relationship of the respondent. She further pleaded that after residing together for about twenty days post-marriage, the respondent returned to his workplace at Jharsuguda and visited home only occasionally, while she remained employed 4rst at Atmanand School, Gurur, and thereafter at Government Primary School, Hasalnar, Kondagaon. The respondent denied all allegations and asserted that the applicant voluntarily chose to reside separately due to her employment and without any su<cient cause. Upon considering the 3 evidence on record, the learned Family Court held that under Section 144 BNSS, it is essential for the wife to establish that she is living separately for a just and su<cient cause, which the applicant failed to prove. The Court further found that the applicant is highly educated, gainfully employed in a government post, and earning su<cient income to maintain herself, and that her allegations of cruelty and monetary transactions remained unsubstantiated. Consequently, the learned Family Court concluded that the applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent and dismissed the application under Section 144 BNSS. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the applicant’s claim for maintenance, which ought to have been granted from the date of the application under Section 144 of the BNSS. It is contended that the court below failed to appreciate that the respondent is employed as a Process Controller at Vedanta Aluminium Company, Jharsuguda (Odisha) and draws a substantial monthly salary of approximately Rs.45,000/-. He further submits that at the time of 4ling the application the applicant was unemployed and the trial court did not consider the admitted fact that the respondent maintained an illicit relationship with one Geeta. It is also urged that the applicant had 4nancially supported the respondent and his family by giving Rs.3,50,000/- for household and land-related expenses and Rs.2,40,000/- to the respondent’s 4 parents for purchase of agricultural land, as reDected in her bank statement. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, wherein it was held that a wife cannot be compelled to become a destitute or beggar, that sustenance means more than mere survival, and that maintenance must enable her to live with dignity in a manner commensurate with the standard of living in her matrimonial home. 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 dismissed the applicant’s claim for maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. The Family Court correctly observed that the applicant, despite alleging cruelty and neglect, failed to establish any just or su<cient cause for living separately from the respondent, which is a mandatory requirement for seeking maintenance under the said provision. The 4ndings of the Court, noting that the applicant is a highly educated and gainfully employed government teacher earning an adequate salary to maintain herself, were based on undisputed material. The allegations of cruelty, character assassination, and monetary transactions were not substantiated by cogent evidence. In contrast, the respondent consistently asserted his willingness to cohabit, and there was no convincing proof to show that the applicant was compelled to live apart. In these circumstances, the Family Court rightly held that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance and lawfully dismissed the application. 5 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity 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