1 2025:CGHC:58899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1469 of 2025 Saurabh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Near Keju Rice Mill, Durg, Tehsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Nisha Sharma W/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey, D/o Late Shri Janardhan Prasad Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Arjuni Bazar Chowk, Village - Arjuni, Police Station- Bhatapara (Village), District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shivansh Sharma (Minor) S/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nisha Sharma, W/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey, R/o Arjuni Bazar Chowk, Village - Arjuni, Police Station- Bhatapara (Village), District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed in M.C.C. No.487/2025 by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.06 11:27:58 +0530 2 Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), whereby an application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of maintenance has been preferred by the respondents, which has been partly allowed and directed the applicant to give a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondents, i.e. Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No.2/son. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, both belonging to the Hindu religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2020 at Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the respondent No. 1 joined the applicant at Durg to cohabit with him. The marriage was duly consummated, and the couple was blessed with a male child, namely Shivansh Sharma, aged about two years, who is presently residing with respondent No. 1. In the initial period of marriage, the relationship between the parties was cordial. However, after some time, the behaviour of the respondent No. 1 changed drastically, and she became rigid, aggressive, and abusive towards the applicant and his parents. In the year 2021, she suddenly collected all her ornaments and gifts including those given by the applicant and his family and left for her parental home. After about one month, the applicant persuaded her to return, and thereafter they started residing in Maharashtra, where the applicant was employed. Respondent No. 1, who was working in a salon, again displayed similar aggressive conduct. The applicant was suffering from kidney disease and undergoing dialysis, and due to her conduct, his health 3 deteriorated further. During her pregnancy, she again left the house without informing the applicant and subsequently delivered the child. Finally, on 16.02.2022, she called her brother and left for her parental home, where she has been residing since then. The applicant made all possible efforts to save the marriage and continued to tolerate the behaviour of the respondent No. 1 in the hope that circumstances would improve. Despite his deteriorating health and ongoing dialysis, the respondent No. 1 showed no concern for his condition. Owing to his medical condition, the applicant left his job in October 2023 and has since been fully dependent on his parents. Left with no other option due to continuous mental harassment, he filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce before the Family Court, Durg, on 18.09.2024. The said petition has been dismissed. In retaliation to the divorce petition, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, along with an application for interim maintenance before the Family Court, Balodabazar, seeking maintenance for herself and the child. Despite knowing that the applicant had recently undergone a kidney transplant in Gujarat, she initiated the proceedings with the intention of harassing him. Notices were issued to the applicant, and the matter was listed on 28.02.2025. Both parties thereafter filed transfer petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, and the High Court transferred both matters to the Family Court, Raipur. After entering appearance before the Family Court, the applicant filed his reply denying the allegations and specifically stating that he has no source of income. He also submitted that he recently underwent a kidney transplant, with his mother having donated her kidney. Due to his condition, he had left his 4 job and is completely dependent on his parents, whose annual income is only ₹45,000/-. He has also obtained an income certificate from the competent authority. Owing to financial hardship, the applicant availed legal aid services. The applicant further submits that after filing his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he attempted to appear online for cross-examination, but due to technical issues, there was miscommunication, and he could not agree to proceed with cross-examination. Thereafter, he filed an application seeking appointment of a commissioner for the purpose of cross-examination, which was rejected by the Family Court on 30.08.2025. Aggrieved, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. W227/958/2025 challenging the said order, in which notice was issued. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Family Court passed the final order. The Family Court, after hearing both parties, allowed the application for maintenance and awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 (wife) and ₹10,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 (child), payable from the date of application. However, the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income, whereas respondent No. 1 herself admitted that she earns from her beauty parlour business. The Court relied solely on her unsubstantiated statement that the applicant is a civil engineer earning Rs.70,000/- per month and that he owns agricultural land from which he earns ₹5 lakhs annually, despite her categorical admission in cross-examination that she has no documentary proof of these claims. The applicant’s reply, affidavit, and the judgment in Rajnish vs. Neha were also not considered. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to interim maintenance, and the present revision petition has been filed. 5 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant, in his reply, has specifically denied all allegations raised by the respondent/wife. Further, he stated in his affidavit that he has no source of income, being unemployed due to his medical ailment, and has undergone a kidney transplant. He also filed an income certificate reflecting the annual income of his father as only Rs. 45,000/-. The learned Family Court granted maintenance without considering the objections raised by the applicant in his reply and affidavit, and without any documentary proof regarding the income of the applicant, who had clearly declared that he has no source of income. The learned Family Court committed an error in failing to appreciate the settled law that the wife, without lawful justification, voluntarily left the applicant and has been residing with her parents. This occurred at a time when the applicant was diagnosed with kidney failure. When the applicant, fed up with the harassment by the wife, filed for divorce, the wife filed a counter-application for maintenance. The learned Family Court erred in law by not considering that the applicant himself is unable to maintain himself and is fully dependent upon his aged parents. It is unreasonable to direct the applicant to pay maintenance to the wife and child while relying solely on unsubstantiated income figures stated by the respondent/wife, without any proof of the applicant’s income. The learned Family Court observed that the applicant did not specify in his reply or affidavit the date on which he underwent kidney transplant, and no doctor was examined to prove that the applicant is unable to earn. However, the 6 applicant had submitted all relevant medical documents, including recent ones, substantiating his medical condition. The court also ignored the applicant’s submissions in the maintenance proceedings, thereby passing a unilateral order. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the practice of making false assertions in court should be discouraged, as such conduct undermines the dignity and sanctity of the Court. The impugned order has caused serious prejudice to the applicant and results in incomplete justice. The Family Court committed a grave error by allowing the maintenance application and directing the applicant to pay maintenance from the date of the application, instead of from the date of the order, when the transfer petition was already pending before this Hon’ble Court. The applicant was suffering from a kidney ailment during the relevant period, and during his treatment, the respondent/wife did not even visit him once to inquire about his well-being, effectively abandoning him to face his illness alone. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti