1 2026:CGHC:3029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 105 of 2026 Prem Kumar Sahu S/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o- Shankar Nagar, Near Durga Mandir Chawani, Bhilai Police Station Jamul, District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Gayatri Sahu W/o Prem Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years Shankar Nagar, Near Durga Mandir Chawani, Bhilai Police Station Jamul, District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ward No. 26, Ghotiya Road, Kawardaha, Police Station And Tehsil Kawardaha, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 30/2025, whereby, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant (husband) and the non-applicant (wife) was solemnized on 01.05.2023 as per Hindu rites and rituals, after which they resided together at Bhilai. The non- applicant alleged that soon after the marriage she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment by the applicant and his family, including demands for a motorcycle and cash of Rs.1.50 lakhs, physical and verbal abuse, and an alleged extramarital relationship of the applicant, and despite efforts at reconciliation, including a settlement before the National Lok Adalat on 14.12.2024, she was allegedly abandoned in February 2025 and threatened when she attempted to return, compelling her to seek maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month on the ground that the applicant earns substantial income from a hotel business. The applicant, on the other hand, denied all allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and extramarital affairs, contending that the non- applicant left the matrimonial home of her own volition, is strong- willed and unwilling to adjust to family life, and falsely implicated him, while asserting that he is merely a hotel labourer earning Rs.150–Rs.200 per day and that the non-applicant is residing at her parental home and availing government welfare benefits. The 3 non-applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court on 12.02.2025, which was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2025 in Criminal Case No. 229/2023, directing the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance, and being aggrieved by the said order, which is alleged to be perverse, disproportionate, and not based on proper appreciation of facts and law, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as it has been passed in complete disregard of the settled principles of law governing the grant of maintenance and by mechanically allowing the application without proper appreciation of the material available on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has ignored the actual income, liabilities, educational qualification, and financial condition of the petitioner, who is only 28 years of age, is merely 10th pass, and is engaged in casual daily-wage labour with no fixed or assured monthly income. The learned Court has erroneously presumed the petitioner to be financially capable of paying the maintenance amount without any documentary evidence to substantiate such presumption regarding his income, business, or regular employment, while the non-applicant failed to prove by 4 cogent and reliable evidence that the petitioner is earning sufficient income to justify the maintenance awarded. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is physically fit, educated, and capable of earning, yet the learned Court failed to consider her earning capacity, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Trial Court also ignored material contradictions in the statements of the non-applicant and her witnesses, particularly with respect to the alleged income and business activities of the petitioner and the allegations of neglect and refusal. Moreover, the petitioner is burdened with his own basic survival expenses including food, accommodation, and daily necessities, and therefore the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive and beyond his paying capacity. The impugned order, having been passed without balancing the needs of the non-applicant with the financial capacity of the petitioner and in ignorance of binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and is thus unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the non-applicant/husband herein to pay 5 Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance, observing that the provisions relating to maintenance are a measure of social justice intended to protect women and prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. The Court noted that although the applicant / wife alleged that the non-applicant / husband was running a hotel business, no documentary evidence regarding his income was produced, and similar admissions were made by the applicant’s witnesses in cross-examination. It was further observed that the applicant also failed to prove the alleged income and employment of the non- applicant. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, and considering the age of the applicant (28 years), his educational qualification, absence of proof of any physical or mental disability, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court presumed him to be a person having sufficient earning capacity. Accordingly, keeping in view the standard of living of the parties, their respective responsibilities, and the needs of the non-applicant, the learned Family Court partly accepted the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month payable from the date of application. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal