1 2026:CGHC:23245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 683 of 2026 Vineet Jain S/o Shri Nemichand Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Quarter No. N.D.-71, Cspcl Colony, Korba, Poorva, Tahsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Shrimati Lovely Sagar W/o Shri Vineet Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Quarter No. 01/c Secl Russian Colony, Korba, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /05/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.21/2024, whereby, the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married to each other on 07.10.2020 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act before the District Marriage Officer-cum-Collector, Korba and the marriage was duly registered. The respondent is Christian by religion, whereas the applicant belongs to Jain community and therefore their marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. It is alleged that both parties came into contact through Facebook, thereafter developed friendship and, with the consent of their respective families, performed marriage ceremony on 08.10.2020 at Hotel Ashirvaad, T.P. Nagar, Korba. It is further the case that after marriage the respondent did not accompany the applicant to the matrimonial home and returned with her parents. According to the respondent, the applicant assured her that after returning to Bangalore he would arrange a separate rented accommodation and thereafter take her with him. Subsequently, on being called by the applicant’s family, the respondent visited her matrimonial house at Korba and allegedly handed over her ornaments for preparation of similar jewellery for the applicant’s sister, which were never returned to her. 3. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties. The respondent alleged that the applicant and his family pressurized her to adopt 3 Jain religion and customs. On failure of reconciliation, the applicant filed a petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage. During pendency of the matrimonial dispute, the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 claiming maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month. The applicant opposed the said application by denying all allegations and contending that the respondent was educated, employed in a private company prior to marriage and capable of maintaining herself. He further stated that he had requested the respondent to accompany him to Bangalore after the Covid lockdown, however she refused and disputes thereafter increased between them. The applicant also disclosed his monthly expenses including house rent, maintenance, fuel and medical expenses. After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the applicant was employed as an Engineer at Bangalore and earning approximately Rs.84,000/- per month. Accordingly, by order dated 12.02.2026, the learned Court below partly allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent giving rise to the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba granting maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the 4 respondent suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the provisions of Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. It is submitted that maintenance can be awarded only when the wife is unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent is an educated and earning woman who was employed in a private company even prior to marriage and is fully capable of maintaining herself independently. He also submits that the respondent, despite repeated requests and efforts made by the applicant, refused to join the matrimonial company without sufficient cause and voluntarily stayed away from the matrimonial home. It is submitted that only after the applicant instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, the respondent filed the maintenance proceedings with an intention to harass and pressurize the applicant. The learned Court below, according to the applicant, failed to properly appreciate the admissions made by the respondent during cross-examination regarding her employment and earning capacity. He also submits that the respondent suppressed material facts before the Court and that a litigant approaching the Court must come with clean hands. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. as well as Rajnesh vs Neha to contend that maintenance laws are intended for dependent spouses unable to maintain themselves and not as a means of financial extortion. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant 5 is willing to amicably resolve the dispute by way of one-time settlement and, therefore, the matter may also be referred for mediation in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, holding that the respondent/wife was unable to maintain herself and was residing separately from the applicant for sufficient cause. The learned Family Court further held that the applicant/husband, being employed as an Engineer at PVR, Bangalore, was earning approximately Rs.84,000/- per month and was financially capable of maintaining the respondent. It further transpires that the learned Family Court observed that although the applicant alleged that the respondent was voluntarily residing separately and was earning independently, no cogent documentary evidence was produced by him to substantiate the same. The Court also held that the applicant failed to establish that he had made sincere and effective efforts to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home or to restore conjugal life. The electronic evidence in the form of pen-drive produced by the applicant was also not considered as the same was not 6 proved in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned Family Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil