1 2025:CGHC:61860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1528 of 2025 Kuleshwar Sahu S/o Aasharam Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Temri, Tehsil Bori, District Durg (C.G.) Adhar Card No. 947543418747 (Details As Per Order Annexe. P/1) ... Applicant versus Smt. Chamman Sahu W/o Kuleshwar Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o (Permanent) Village Temri, Tehsil Bori, District Durg (C.G.), Present Address Near Bharat Mata School, Tattibnad, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 492099 Adhar Card No. 651052287944 Mob. No. 6232355854, 7470513800 (Details As Per Order Annexe. P/1) … Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. Surbhi Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.19 16:02:18 +0530 2 allow this revision application and quash/set aside the impugned Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) [ANNEXURE P/1]. 2. Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the revisioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for maintenance before the learned Family Court below, stating, inter alia, as under: the alleged marriage between the respondent and the applicant was purportedly solemnized about thirty years ago in accordance with Hindu social customs and traditions, and thereafter they cohabited as husband and wife. From the said wedlock, one daughter, namely Yashoda Sahu, was born to the parties. The respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, making unfounded allegations that the applicant (husband) was in the habit of consuming alcohol and, under its influence, used to abuse and assault her, and that his family members also subjected her to mental and physical harassment. It was further alleged that the applicant failed to provide her with proper food, medical treatment, and other basic necessities during her illness. The respondent has made false and exaggerated statements regarding the income and assets of the applicant by alleging an annual income which is wholly incorrect and baseless. The respondent also pleaded that she has no independent source of income or means of livelihood. The respondent prayed for the grant of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- 3 from the applicant/husband, stating that she requires the said amount to meet her day-to-day needs. 5. The applicant duly denied all the averments made by the respondent, inter alia, as under: that the applicant emphatically denies the allegations of harassment, cruelty, or ill-treatment levelled by the respondent and submits that such allegations are entirely false, fabricated, and motivated. The applicant admits that he had contracted a second marriage and that his second wife has since passed away; however, during her lifetime, both wives and their children resided harmoniously in the same household, and both wives lived together peacefully like sisters. The respondent is presently residing with her daughter, who is employed in Raipur and earns approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month, and therefore, the respondent has voluntarily chosen to stay with her daughter. 6. The applicant has no fixed or substantial income and earns merely Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- annually, which is utilized for the maintenance of his dependent family members and for his own medical treatment. 7. Despite the aforesaid facts, the concerned learned Family Court has unjustifiably partly allowed the application for maintenance preferred by the respondent and has erroneously passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 against the applicant, thereby directing him to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the application for grant of maintenance. She submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law that the party asserting any fact must prove the 4 same by cogent and reliable evidence, whereas the respondent failed to prove neglect, cruelty, or desertion on the part of the applicant. She further submits that the respondent left the applicant’s house of her own volition, without any valid reason or justification, and has been living separately for many years voluntarily. The allegations of harassment, cruelty, and neglect are false, fabricated, and have been made only with an ulterior motive to extract money from the applicant. She also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is an old, sick, and dependent person, having no fixed source of income and requiring continuous medical assistance for his survival. The finding of the learned Family Court regarding the applicant’s income is baseless and perverse, as no documentary evidence whatsoever was produced by the respondent to establish that the applicant earns Rs. 15–20 lakhs per annum. The applicant’s actual income is merely Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- annually, which is insufÏcient even to maintain himself, let alone to pay the maintenance as directed. She submits that the respondent’s daughter, with whom she is presently residing, is financially independent and earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month, and as per moral as well as legal obligations, she is bound to maintain her mother. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded as maintenance is exorbitant, disproportionate, and without any legal or factual basis, considering the applicant’s poor financial condition and deteriorating health. The impugned order is unjust, arbitrary, illegal, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the 5 applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 12. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek