1 CGHC010259602026 2026:CGHC:32079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 897 of 2026 Lily Bishwas W/o Pushpendra Bishwas Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mohra, P.S. Suhela, Tehsil, Simga District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Pushpendra Bishwas S/o Manoj Bishwas Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mohra, P.S. Suhela, Tehsil, Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For applicant : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. Satish Surya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, an application seeking condonation of the delay of 58 days in preferring the present criminal revision petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.28 17:32:19 +0530 2 30/01/2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir in M.J.C. No. 19/2025 be ordered to be set-aside, in interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and rituals on 13.07.2021 at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur. After the solemnization of the marriage, both started residing at Village Mohara, Police Station Suhela, Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, and lived peacefully for some time. Thereafter, according to the applicant, the respondent and his family members started harassing and pressurizing her for dowry. The applicant has alleged that she is the sole daughter of her parents and that the respondent and his family members demanded 100 grams of gold ornaments (10 tolas), one four-wheeler vehicle, and Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash as dowry, and subjected her to cruelty in connection with the said demand. It is further alleged that, under such pressure, the applicant’s parents provided 100 grams of gold ornaments (10 tolas) and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the purchase of a four-wheeler vehicle. Despite the same, the respondent and his family members allegedly continued to harass and subject the applicant to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. The applicant has further alleged that the respondent and his family members made scandalous allegations regarding her character by accusing her of having an illicit relationship with another person. It is also alleged that they attempted to portray her as mentally unstable, and that the respondent used to administer various prohibited substances to her. The applicant has further stated that the respondent is attempting to contract a second marriage and that she has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent upon her parents for her maintenance. The applicant has further alleged that, apart 3 from the mental harassment and cruelty meted out to her, she was also subjected to physical abuse and was a victim of rape. She submitted a complaint before Police Station Suhela, District Baloda Bazar, on 07.11.2024 against the respondent and his family members. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 56/2025 was registered on 08.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(F), 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The respondent, along with his father and uncle, was arrested and remained in judicial custody for approximately two to three months. The criminal case against the respondent and his family members is still pending. 5. On 03.01.2025, the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Janjgir. Vide order dated 20.08.2025, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir granted interim maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. 6. Vide order dated 30.01.2026, the learned Family Court, Janjgir rejected the applicant’s application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and erroneously held that the applicant was not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 7. The respondent denied the allegations made by the applicant and contended that neither he nor his family members ever demanded any gold ornaments or cash by way of dowry. He further relied upon an agreement dated 27.09.2024, allegedly executed between the parties, which, according to him, remained in the custody of the applicant. It was further pleaded that on 24.09.2024, while the parents of the respondent were away from the house, the applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home with her close friend, which incident was allegedly captured in the CCTV footage. The respondent claimed that he made efforts to trace the 4 applicant, but she did not disclose her whereabouts. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on 24.09.2024 at Police Station Suhela in this regard. The respondent specifically denied that he is carrying on any flourishing business or has a substantial source of income and asserted that he is financially dependent upon his parents. He further relied upon the agreement executed between the parties, wherein it was allegedly recorded that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home with her close friend and had refused to reside with her husband. It was further alleged that on 27.09.2024, the applicant, in the presence of her father, namely, Tapan Sarkar, collected all her stridhan articles and left the matrimonial home. The respondent further contended that the applicant is accustomed to leading an independent life and is, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance from him. It was also alleged that the applicant is the holder of a licence for a medical shop and earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month therefrom, and is thus financially capable of maintaining herself. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on facts and is, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and it is the legal as well as moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife. He also submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order holding that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient or justifiable reason. The said finding is wholly perverse, contrary to the material available on record, and liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Family Court has overlooked the material fact that a criminal case involving allegations of rape is pending against the respondent and his family members. The applicant was subjected to both physical and 5 mental cruelty, as a result of which she has been living in a state of severe trauma. The rejection of her application for maintenance has further aggravated her hardship, as she is presently unemployed and entirely dependent upon her parents for her livelihood. He further submits that although the applicant has completed a Beauty Parlour course, she does not own or operate any beauty parlour business. At present, she is unemployed and wholly dependent upon her parents for her maintenance. Her financial condition is extremely precarious, and she is in no position to establish a beauty parlour business on her own. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 has failed to consider this material aspect of the matter. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have awarded maintenance to the applicant, as the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a wife by providing her with food, clothing, and shelter through a speedy and efficacious remedy. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a measure of social justice enacted for the protection of women and children and falls within the constitutional mandate of Article 15(3), read with Article 39 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the respondent is financially well capable of maintaining the applicant but has deliberately neglected and refused to discharge his legal and moral obligation to maintain her. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper, and well-reasoned, and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. From perusal of the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, reveals that the 6 applicant's application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance, was dismissed on the ground that she failed to establish sufficient cause for living separately from her husband. The Family Court observed that the applicant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the income or properties of the respondent, though the respondent admitted that he is the licence holder of a medical store earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Court further noted that the applicant has been residing with her father, was receiving interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month, and had admitted in her cross-examination that she had completed a Beauty Parlour course. Accordingly, the Family Court held that the applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as well as on perusal of the impugned order of the learned Family Court, it appears that although the learned Family Court, vide order dated 30.01.2026, dismissed the applicant's application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that she had failed to establish sufficient cause for residing separately from her husband and was, therefore, not entitled to maintenance, this Court found that the concerned Family Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. This Court observed that the mere fact that the applicant had completed a Beauty Parlour course could not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that she was financially independent or disentitled to claim maintenance. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 7 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in M.J.C. Case No.19/2025, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned for fresh consideration of the application under Section 144 BNSS, in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek