1 2026:CGHC:5288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 131 of 2026 Shashank Raj @ Roshan Dubey S/o Yogendra Kumar Dubey, Aged About 29 Years R/o Baralota, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Daltonganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand ... Applicant versus Roshni Pandey W/o Shashank Raj @ Roshan Dubey, Aged About 27 Years R/o Near LIC OfÏce, Village Chainpur, Tehsil Manendragarh District-MCB (Koriya) Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rohan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rohan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Impugned order passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh 20/11/2025 in the case number CIS/MCC no. 262/2024, accepting the application of the respondents for the award of maintenance be quashed and set ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.02 11:16:39 +0530 2 aside, and also, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case the applicant is the legally wedded husband of the respondent. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 02.03.2024 at Ranadih, District Garhwa, Jharkhand, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The factum of marriage is admitted by both parties. After the marriage, the respondent stayed at the matrimonial home for a short duration. The Applicant’s consistent case is that during this period, the respondent refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations, declined cohabitation, and exhibited indifferent and hostile conduct, which resulted in matrimonial discord. The respondent left the matrimonial home in March 2024 and started residing with her parents at Manendragarh. The applicant made repeated attempts, both personally and through relatives, to bring the respondent back, which were declined without any just cause. Due to the respondent’s refusal to resume cohabitation, the applicant instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent Family Court at Daltonganj on 08.10.2024, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The pendency of the said proceeding is admitted. 4. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 before the Family Court, Manendragarh, registered as MCC No. 262/2024, claiming maintenance on allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and desertion. 5. The Applicant filed a detailed written reply denying all allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and ouster. It was specifically pleaded that: • No dowry was ever demanded; 3 • The amounts transferred were voluntary and were meant for purchase of jewellery; • The respondent is highly educated, capable of earning, and was engaged in private employment and providing tuition. 6. It was further pleaded that the applicant is not employed as a Software Engineer in TCS, as erroneously presumed while awarding maintenance. In fact, the applicant has a limited income and is working as a Computer Operator at M/s D.M.B. Traders, Panki, Palamu, earning a meagre salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 7. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The respondent relied upon bank statements, bills of household items, photographs, audio recordings, and an FIR. The applicant relied upon employment- related documents and oral testimony denying the allegations. 8. By order dated 20.11.2025, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s application under Section 144 of the BNSS and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the date of the application, i.e., 16.12.2024. The learned Family Court held that: (i) the respondent had “sufÏcient cause” to live separately; (ii) the applicant had concealed his true income and was presumed to be a Software Engineer working at TCS; and (iii) the respondent had no independent source of income. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to law, the facts on record, and the settled principles governing grant of maintenance, and therefore suffers from manifest illegality and material irregularity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. The learned Family Court has erred in law in holding that the respondent had “sufÏcient cause” to live separately, despite serious contradictions, 4 inherent improbabilities, and uncorroborated allegations in her testimony, thereby recording a finding which is perverse and unsustainable. The finding of cruelty and dowry demand is based solely on self-serving statements of the respondent, without any contemporaneous complaint, independent corroboration, or reliable documentary proof. The learned Court failed to appreciate that belated and unsubstantiated allegations, by themselves, cannot constitute “sufÏcient cause” under law. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider that the applicant had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which is a relevant and material circumstance demonstrating the applicant’s willingness to resume cohabitation and negating the allegation of desertion. The learned Court misdirected itself in law by presuming the applicant’s income and employment status on conjectures and surmises, without any legally admissible documentary evidence, thereby impermissibly shifting the burden of proof upon the applicant. The conclusion that the applicant is a Software Engineer earning a high income is based on assumptions and alleged “suppression”, whereas the respondent herself failed to discharge the primary burden of proving the applicant’s actual income, as mandated under law. He further submits that the learned Court ignored the settled principle that maintenance cannot be granted on speculative or presumed income, and that any adverse inference must be founded on cogent and reliable evidence, not on typographical errors or conjectural reasoning. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is an educated and technically qualified person, capable of earning, and that mere absence of documentary proof of current employment does not ipso facto establish her inability to maintain herself. He further submits that the finding that the respondent has no 5 independent source of income has been recorded without proper inquiry, without calling for relevant records, and without applying the statutory test of “unable to maintain herself” as required under law. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court erred in relying upon alleged audio/video recordings without proof of source, authenticity, or compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Sakshya Adhiniyam, yet used such material to draw adverse conclusions against the applicant. The impugned order fails to consider that mere registration or pendency of a criminal case or complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of cruelty or dowry demand for the purposes of maintenance proceedings. The quantum of maintenance has been fixed arbitrarily, without any rational assessment of the applicant’s proven income, liabilities, dependents, and financial capacity, rendering the award of Rs. 10,000/- per month legally unsound. He submits that the learned Court failed to balance the comparative financial capacities of the parties and ignored the applicant’s specific plea regarding his limited income and dependent family members, resulting in grave prejudice to the applicant. The impugned order has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and, if allowed to stand, would cause irreparable injury and undue hardship to the applicant. The impugned order is liable to be set aside as being illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent 6 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek