1 2026:CGHC:17934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 518 of 2026 1. Smt. Prerna Ahire W/o Pankaj Dahire Aged About 34 Years Old On The Post Of Judicial Magistrate, R/o Azad Nagar Pandariya Road Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Present Address Civil Line, Kachaheri Para, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2. Vedant Kumar S/o Shri Pankaj Dahire Aged About 02 Year and 7 Month (Minor Represented By Applicant No. 1. R/o Azad Nagar Pandariya Road Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Present Address Civil Line, Kachaheri Para, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Pankaj Dahire S/o Daalchand Dahire Aged About 37 Years Posted As Additional Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate At Mainpur, District Gariyaband. R/o Azad Nagar, Pandariya Road, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 0.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Family Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No.817/2025, whereby maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month was fixed for Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar. Since both parties are in government service and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.21 15:01:39 +0530 2 earned an income, they were directed to bear the said amount equally. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was partly allowed in favour of Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar, and it was ordered that the non-applicant would pay half of the total maintenance amount, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month, from the date of the application, i.e., 30/04/2025. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. On 30.04.2025, the applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking maintenance from the non-applicant, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 03.12.2017 at Park Palace, Raipur, as per Hindu rites. After the marriage, the applicant No.1 went to reside at her matrimonial home in Takhatpur. After staying there for a few days, she travelled to Kerala with her husband. Upon returning, the non-applicant, along with his mother and sisters, allegedly subjected the applicant No.1 to mental harassment, instigated quarrels, and abused her in filthy language. The applicant No.1 further stated that the non-applicant used to taunt her regarding the car gifted by her father at the time of marriage, claiming it was meant for her and not for him. He allegedly quarreled with her after visits by her family members and threatened to expel her from the house. It is further alleged that the non-applicant abused her family members in obscene language and threatened physical harm. After a few months of marriage, the non-applicant and his family allegedly harassed her on account of insufficient dowry. Approximately one and a half months after the marriage, the applicant No.1 received her joining letter and joined her post as a Judicial Magistrate at Jagdalpur, Bastar, on 29.01.2018, where 3 she resided in government accommodation. During this period, she would visit the non-applicant at his place of posting in Bagbahra on weekends. Applicant No.1 further alleged that upon becoming pregnant, the non- applicant pressured her to undergo an abortion. When she refused and the doctor declined to perform the procedure, the non-applicant allegedly procured abortion medication and forced her to consume it, resulting in miscarriage. Applicant No. 1 sought maintenance of Rs. 80,000/- per month on the grounds of dowry-related harassment and mental cruelty by the non-applicant. 3. The non-applicant filed his reply denying all allegations. He contended that the applicant No.1 never resided at her matrimonial home in Takhatpur after marriage. It is submitted that since her appointment as a Judicial Magistrate on 29.01.2018, she has been residing separately and has not lived with the non-applicant either at Takhatpur or at his place of posting. He further alleged that the applicant’s father, being a senior police officer, exerted undue pressure on the non-applicant and his family, and that applicant No.1 misused her position to threaten them with legal consequences. The non-applicant further stated that applicant No. 1 informed him of her pregnancy in May 2018 but did not share details of medical treatment. He alleged that the applicant No.1 herself insisted on abortion due to her probationary status as a Civil Judge. However, the learned Family Court, without properly considering the documents on record, passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, fixing maintenance at Rs. 30,000/- per month for Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar. Considering that both parties are government employees earning an income, the Court directed that the amount be borne equally. Accordingly, the non-applicant was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application, i.e., 30.04.2025. The said amount payable to 4 Applicant No. 2 shall be received through his mother, Applicant No. 1, Prerna Ahire. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the trial Court failed to consider applicant No.1’s allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, forced abortion, and the non-applicant’s extramarital conduct, which clearly indicate the need for enhanced support. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. He further submits that under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Section 144 of the BNSS, the learned trial Court acted with material irregularity by partially allowing maintenance without considering inflation, the applicant No.1’s probationary employment constraints, and her interim needs during the pendency of the proceedings, thereby denying substantial justice. The learned Family Court erred in observing that applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home without just and reasonable cause and failed to perform her marital obligations, without properly appreciating the material on record. Fixing maintenance at Rs. 30,000/- in total (with Rs. 15,000/- payable by the non-applicant) is arbitrary and inadequate, as it fails to account for the child’s education, medical, and upbringing expenses of Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar. The Court also failed to direct disclosure of the non-applicant’s complete income, resulting in an unjust apportionment and failure to exercise jurisdiction to grant appropriate interim relief commensurate with his earning capacity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the educational, medical, and other expenses of Applicant No. 2, Vedant 5 Kumar, as well as the status of both parents, maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month is fixed for Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar. Since both parties are in government service and earn an income, they shall bear the said amount equally. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is partly allowed in favour of Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar. It is hereby ordered that the non-applicant shall pay half of the total maintenance amount, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month, from the date of the application, i.e., 30/04/2025. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- payable by the non-applicant to Applicant No. 2, Vedant Kumar, shall be received by his mother, Applicant No. 1, Prerna Ahire. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present 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 Preeti