1 2026:CGHC:24810-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 97 of 2025 Baliram Sahu S/o Shri Tihari Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Jarhagaon, Tahsil And Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Triveni Bai Sahu W/o Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 45 Years D/o Shri Khorbahra Sahu, R/o Village Louda, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Poonam Kumari Sahu D/o Shri Baliram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Louda, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board (18.06.2026) Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 1. Appellant/non-applicant has filed this appeal questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2024 (CIS No.CGBI-150000802024), whereby the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adaption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (In short ‘HAMA’) granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents/applicants. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this present appeal are that an application U/s. 18 of the Hindu Adaption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was filed by the respondents/applicants before the Family Court, Mungeli seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- pleading therein that marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the appellant/non- applicant in the year 1996 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, they had two children. After marriage, non-applicant used to quarrel with applicant over trivial issue. Non-applicant was involved relationship with other woman. Non-applicant used to quarrel and assault applicant and throw her out of house because she had given birth to a daughter. Non-applicant married to one Paragabai and they are living together as husband and wife. Applicant is residing separately from her husband since last 17 years. She is maintaining herself and her daughter by doing labor work. Her daughter is presently pursuing her studies in college and she is dependent upon her brother and to meet out her educational expenses. Her daughter is currently 19 years of age and has attained now marriageable age. She further pleaded that non-applicant is working as Mason and he is having agricultural land and from where he earns Rs.30,000/- per month. She prays for grant of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 3 3. Non-applicant filed reply to the application admitting the marriage between the parties and the birth of children out of said wedlock, while denying all other facts and allegation. It was pleaded that applicant No.1 voluntarily left the non-applicant since last 7-8 years and living in her parental home without any justifiable reason. Non-applicant made several attempt to keep applicant with him and for that social meeting was also held but applicant always refused to come. 4. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by respective parties have formulated as many as four issues for consideration and upon considering the evidence brought in record by the respective parties, has allowed the application of applicants partly awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- to each of the applicant). 5. Learned counsel for appellant would submit impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law and is passed without considering the documentary and oral evidence brought on record. The learned Family Court failed to examine the the evidence brought on record in its true perspective. Respondent No.1 has voluntarily left the appellant and has been living in her parental home without any justifiable grounds. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is working as a mason and earns hardly Rs. 7,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the financial condition and income of appellant, has awarded an excessive amount of maintenance in favour of the respondents. He further submits that respondents are capable to maintain themselves. 4 6. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and supports the impugned order. The appellant is working as a mason and also owns ancestral agricultural land. He has sufficient sources of income. He further submits that quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is on proper appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The marriage between the parties and the children out of their wedlock is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that appellant and respondent No.1 have been living separately since 15 to 17 years. Respondents have filed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 18 of the Act, 1956 on the ground that she was subjected to harassment, deserted and thrown out of house by appellant and remarried to one Paraga Bai. 9. Section 18 of the HAMA, under which the application is filed reads as under :- “18. Maintenance of wife.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance,- 5 (a) if he guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her; (b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband; (c) { …….} (d) if he has any other wife living; (e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere; (f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; (g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately. (3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.” 10. The above quoted provision contained in the Section 18 of the HAMA provides that a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of the HAMA, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. Sub-section (2) provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, if she satisfies the contingencies mentioned under clause (a) to (g) of Sub-section (2). Likewise Sub- section (3) provides for the condition when a Hindu wife shall not be entitled to 6 separate residence, it says, a Hindu wife shall not be entitled for separate residence and maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion. 11. A close reading of the entire Section 18 of the HAMA would thus clear that when the husband is guilty of committing any lapses provided under clause (a) to (g) of Sub-section (2), the Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. 12. Respondent No.1/wife in order to substantiate her claim has examined herself as (A.W.-1), her daughter Poonam Sahu as (A.W.-2) and placed on record the copy of B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni and Khasra Panchsala to show that appellant owns ancestral agricultural land. She has stated in her evidence as per the plaint averments. She further stated that a daughter and a son was born from marital relationship of non-applicant and applicant and her daughter is residing with her and son is residing with father/non-applicant. She further stated that due to quarrel and throwing her away from house by non-applicant, she is living in her parental home. She also stated that appellant married with one Paragabai. Her daughter is currently 19 years of age and pursing her studies in college. She is maintaining and supporting her daughter, including her education, by engaging herself in labour work and by obtaining financial assistance from her brother. Poonam Sahu (A.W.- 2), who is daughter of applicant has stated that she has been living with her mother since childhood and has further stated that her father has not come to see her and her educational expenses are being born by her mother by doing labour work. She also stated that she is pursuing her education in college while staying in hostel at Bilaspur. 7 13. On the other hand, non-applicant examined himself as (N.A.W.-1) and also examined Rajkumar as (N.A.W.-2) and Satish Sahu as (N.A.W.- 3). Non-applicant (N.A.W-1) has deposed that applicant left the non- applicant without any valid reason and is living in her parental home since last 14-15 years despite non-applicant’s many efforts to keep her with him. He also stated that social meeting was also held to resolve the dispute between them and to keep the applicant with him but applicant refused to live with him. In cross-examination, he admitted that there was dispute and quarrel between them regarding a woman Paragabai. He also admitted that presently he kept Paragabai as his wife and he also admitted that applicant-wife refused to live with him because he had kept Paragabai as his wife. 14. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the non-applicant, namely Raj Kumar (NAW-2) and Satish Sahu (NAW-3), also made similar statements, deposing that applicant had left non-applicant about 14– 15 years ago without any reason and since then she is living at her matrimonial home. They further stated that non-applicant made several efforts to bring her back; however, applicant refused to return and reside with non-applicant. 15. On consideration of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties shows that differences arose between the parties due to the relationship of appellant with one Paragabai. It is also apparent that no decree of divorce has been passed by any competent Court, nor any valid customary divorce has been proved. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties continues to subsist, and they remain husband and wife in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the wife- 8 respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the husband under Section 18 of HAMA. 16. The respondent-wife has categorically stated in her evidence that she has no independent source of income. She has further deposed that she is maintaining herself and her daughter by undertaking labour work and is also dependent on the financial assistance from her brother to meet the educational expenses of her daughter. It has also come on record that the daughter has now attained marriageable age, which has increased the financial responsibilities of the respondent- wife. The appellant has failed to controvert either the pleadings or the evidence adduced by the respondent-wife in this regard. No cogent oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant to disprove her version or to establish that she has any independent source of income. 17. Section 20 of the HAMA provides for maintenance to unmarried daughter till she is unable to maintain herself. Clause (3) of Section 20 states as under :- “20. Maintenance of children and aged parents. - (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.” 9 18. So far as the ground raised by the appellant that the Family Court has awarded an excessive amount of maintenance by overlooking the evidence with regard to his income is concerned, the appellant has admitted and stated that he works as a mason and that his employment is not of a permanent nature. Even if appellant is not in permanent employment and is working as a mason or similar labour work, his income is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for such work on the date of the order. In addition to the above, the respondent-wife has placed on record revenue documents to show that the appellant owns ancestral agricultural land, from which he also derives income, which was not denied by appellant. Moreover, in para 10 of his cross-examination, appellant has admitted that he cultivates paddy and tivra crops in the field of his village and he further admitted that his son runs a shop from the home. From the above facts, it is clear that appellant has sufficient means to pay maintenance as he works as a mason and also owns agricultural land and derives additional income by agricultural operations. Moreover, his son runs a shop from their home. 19. The object of maintenance proceedings is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 has held that provision is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance. Further in case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, it was emphasized that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. 10 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, while reiterating the decision in case of Chaturbhuj (supra), has considered the issue and held as under :- “81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.” 21. Section 23 of the HAMA, states that while deciding the amount of maintenance, the Court must consider the needs of the claimant, the financial condition of the parties, and the income or property of the person liable to pay. The maintenance awarded should be fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case. Awarding Rs.3,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- to unmarried daughter, appears to this Court that the Family Court has considered the reasonableness and just amount towards maintenance. 22. For the foregoing discussions and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore quoted judgments, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by learned Family Court allowing the 11 application U/s. 18 of HAMA awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- to each of applicants) is based on proper appreciation of the facts and law and it does not call for any interference. 23. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram