1 2026:CGHC:27413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 824 of 2026 1 - Smt. Annu Gupta W/o Shri Pankaj Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o Baskepy, Badhwar Para, Chowki Ganesh Mod, P.S. And Tehsil Chando, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Beside Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Mohalla Darripara, Nagar Ambikapur, P.S. Manipur, Post And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Ayanshi Gupta D/o Shri Pankaj Gupta Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian/ Mother Smt. Annu Gupta (Applicant No. 1) R/o Baskepy, Badhwar Para, Chowki Ganesh Mod, P.S. And Tehsil Chando, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Beside Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Mohalla Darripara, Nagar Ambikapur, P.S. Manipur, Post And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Shri Pankaj Gupta S/o Shri Vinod Gupta Aged About 32 Years Address Abu Dhabi Marine Services - Saphin, L L C Place Of Business Building 72, Jonscorp Area, Al-Mu-Asassat Street, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, U A E (United Arab Emirates) Permanent Address Baskepy, Badhwar Para, Police Chowki Ganesh Mod, P.O. And P.S. Maharajganj, Tehsil Chando, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 03.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision, set aside and quash the finding on Issue No. 1 in the impugned Order dated 29.04.2026 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case 49/2025 that Revisionist No. 1 was residing separately from the Non-Applicant without sufficient cause, and hold in her favour that she had/has sufficient cause for separate residence, thereby entitling her to maintenance under Section 144 BNSS and award appropriate monthly maintenance to Revisionist No. 1 commensurate with the Non-Applicant's proven income of approximately Rs. 2,13,451/- per month and the standard of living of the parties, enhance the monthly maintenance awarded to Revisionist No. 2 from Rs. 3,000/- to a just and reasonable amount commensurate with the Non- Applicant's actual income and the child's needs, in the interest of justice.” 3 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with the non-applicant/respondent on 01.07.2021 at Shivam Residency Hotel, Darripara, Ambikapur, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and out of the said wedlock, applicant No.2, a minor daughter, namely Kumari Ayyanshi Gupta, was born on 15.10.2022. It is alleged that within a few days of the marriage, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of applicant No.1 started subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty on trivial issues in the presence of the non-applicant, who allegedly supported their conduct. The non-applicant and his family members also allegedly prevented the applicant from leading a normal marital life, abused and assaulted her whenever she objected, and repeatedly demanded divorce. It is further alleged that during her pregnancy, the non-applicant and his family members refused to bear her medical expenses and left her at her parental home, where all expenses relating to her treatment and delivery were borne by her family. After the birth of a female child, the applicants allege that the non-applicant and his family members taunted applicant No.1 for giving birth to a daughter instead of a son and continued to subject her to cruelty. It is further alleged that on 22.03.2023, applicant No.1 discovered a poisonous substance mixed in her food and, apprehending danger to her life, she ultimately left the matrimonial home in July, 2023 and started residing with her parents. Thereafter, on 16.07.2023, she lodged a written complaint before the concerned police authorities, however, no effective action was taken. It is the further case of the applicants that the non- 4 applicant is employed as a Merchant Navy professional in Abu Dhabi, UAE, earning a substantial monthly income, besides having agricultural and business income, yet he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. Consequently, the applicants preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur. Despite service of summons, the non-applicant remained ex parte and did not contest the proceedings. By the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, the learned Family Court dismissed the maintenance claim of applicant No.1 and awarded maintenance of only Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant No.2 (minor daughter). Being aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision has been preferred seeking appropriate enhancement of maintenance and grant of maintenance to applicant No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence available on record and the settled principles of law governing maintenance proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has illegally rejected the maintenance claim of Applicant No.1 despite the fact that the evidence adduced by her remained wholly unrebutted and unchallenged, as the non- applicant, despite service of summons, chose to remain ex parte throughout the proceedings and neither filed any reply nor led any evidence in defence. It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are summary in nature and intended to prevent destitution and 5 vagrancy, therefore, the learned Family Court erred in insisting upon strict and independent corroboration of every allegation made by Applicant No.1. He submits that the sworn testimony of the wife was sufficient to establish cruelty, neglect, refusal to maintain and sufficient cause for living separately, particularly when the same remained unrebutted. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ignored the cumulative effect of the evidence relating to cruelty, neglect during pregnancy, humiliation after the birth of a female child, abandonment, and the respondent’s continuous failure to maintain the applicants. It is also argued that the learned Family Court recorded adverse findings on mere assumptions and conjectures, misread the evidence on record, and erroneously discarded the applicants’ case regarding the conduct of the non- applicant without any rebuttal evidence. 4. Mr. Gupta further submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence establishing that the non-applicant is employed as a Merchant Navy professional in Abu Dhabi, UAE, earning approximately Rs.2,13,451/- per month, besides having substantial agricultural and business income, yet arbitrarily assessed his monthly income at only Rs.15,000/-, which is wholly unrealistic, unsupported by the material on record and contrary to the admitted documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the maintenance of only Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to Applicant No.2 is grossly inadequate and wholly disproportionate to the financial capacity and standard of living of the non-applicant. Learned counsel further contends that the 6 impugned order is perverse, suffers from non-consideration and misappreciation of material evidence, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in maintenance matters, and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and the applicable provisions of law, has rightly passed the impugned order. The learned Family Court has meticulously appreciated the entire material on record and found that applicant No.1 failed to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that she had sufficient and justifiable grounds to reside separately from the non-applicant so as to claim maintenance. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the allegations of cruelty and other accusations levelled against the non-applicant were not substantiated by convincing evidence. At the same time, considering the legal and moral obligation of a father to maintain his minor child, the learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of applicant No.2 after assessing the material available regarding the earning capacity of the non-applicant. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper 7 appreciation of the evidence on record and are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The impugned order is well reasoned, just and in accordance with the settled principles governing proceedings for maintenance. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan