1 2026:CGHC:17864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 483 of 2026 Deepak Purane S/o Late Yuvraj Purane Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ufra, Post Gugheli, Tahsil Berla District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shraddha Purane W/o Deepak Purane Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Post Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Gourav Purane S/o Deepak Purane Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shraddha Purane R/o Village Mudpar, Post Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set- aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District-Durg Chhattisgarh in KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No. 183/2025 or granted maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicants have filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S before the learned Family Court concerned, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant. On 09.04.2009, the marriage between the applicant and Non-applicant No.1 was solemnized in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage, Non- applicant No.1 started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial house as his legally wedded wife. Out of their wedlock, Non- applicant No.2 was born. The case of the Non-applicant No.1, as set out in the application is that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members started harassing and subjecting her to cruelty on account of insufÏcient dowry. It is further alleged that the applicant committed marpeet (physical assault) with Non- applicant No.1, used filthy language and made unlawful demands for dowry. On account of the alleged cruelty and harassment, Non- applicant No.1 left her matrimonial house and started residing at her parental house along with Non-applicant No.2. It is further averred by the Non-applicants that Non-applicant No.1 has no independent source of income for her survival and that of Non-applicant No.2. It is alleged that the applicant is employed in the private sector and earns approximately Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and is also possessed of agricultural land and therefore has sufÏcient means to maintain the Non-applicants however, he refused to maintain her and her child. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, 3 the Non-applicants filed the aforesaid application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 3. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply, denying all the averments made in the application. The applicant also filed his afÏdavit stating that Non- applicant No.1 had left the matrimonial house on her own accord without any sufÏcient cause and used to quarrel with the applicant without any reason. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of said application. 4. After considering the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2026, partly allowed the application of the Non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 1,500/- each to Non-applicant No.1 and Non-applicant No.2. from the date of filing of application. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant never subjected the Non-applicant No.1 to any cruelty and had always made sincere efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship, however, Non-applicant No.1, without any sufÏcient cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing separately without making any effort to return. It is further submitted that the Non-applicants have failed to establish any justifiable reason for living separately or to prove the alleged income of the 4 applicant by producing cogent evidence, yet the learned Family Court, without proper assessment of the applicant’s financial condition, has arbitrarily awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also contended that the applicant is in a weak financial position and is unable to pay the said amount. Therefore, in absence of proof of neglect or sufÏcient means and considering that Non-applicant No.1 is living separately without reasonable cause, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of B.N.S.S., and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2026, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 3000/-) from the date of filing of application. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be 5 said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal