1 2025:CGHC:52702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1297 of 2025 Paras Yadav S/o Ramlochan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Yadav Para, Village Bhatko, Post O ce Bautoli, Tehsil - Sitapur, District - Surguja, C.G. ... Applicant versus Aasha Yadav W/o Paras Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sarbhonka, Post - Nagpur, Police Station - Podi, Tehsil – Manendragarh, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (Now Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur) (C.G.) in Case No. 65/2025, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS <led by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent herein had preferred an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking grant of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 maintenance inter-alia on the ground that the marriage between the Applicant & respondent was solemnized on 09.06.2019 at Village Sarbhonka and there are no children born out of the said wedlock. It has been averred that the parties resided together harmoniously for about one month after their marriage, subsequent to which the attitude of the respondent's in-laws changed towards her. 4. It has been further alleged in the respondent's application that nearly one year after the marriage, the Applicant was convicted for an oBence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. During the said period of incarceration, it has been alleged that the respondent was subjected to harassment by her father-in-law and brother-in-law. However, in order to maintain the dignity and reputation of the family, she refrained from lodging any complaint. It is further alleged that upon the Applicant's release from jail, when the respondent apprised him of the said acts of harassment, he paid no heed to her grievances. It has also been alleged that when the respondent's father retired from service, the Applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from him, and thereafter, the Applicant discontinued marital relations with the respondent. It has also been averred that on 11.02.2025, during the unfortunate demise of a member of the respondent family, both families were present for the related rituals. 5. It is alleged that on the said occasion, a dispute arose between the parties, which eventually led to a quarrel, and a complaint regarding the said incident was lodged at the concerned police station. It is further submitted that ever since the said incident, the respondent has been residing at her parental home and has not returned to the matrimonial house. The respondent has further alleged that the applicant is engaged 3 in agricultural activities and also works part-time in a Kirana shop, from which he earns approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month. It has been alleged that despite having su cient means, the applicant has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent. Accordingly, in her application, the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards her maintenance. 6. The applicant has <led the reply and denied the contention of the application <led by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent without any su cient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant as per the provisions of Section 144(4) of BNSS. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 4 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 in<rmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certi<ed copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar