1 CGHC010283322026 2026:CGHC:32003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 957 of 2026 Piyush Vaishnav S/o Lakhandas Vaishnav Aged About 36 Years R/o Rajendra Ward Near Durga Mandir, Mungeli , Police Station Mungeli, District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Shivani W/o Piyush Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Rajendra Ward Near Durga Mandir, Mungeli , Police Station Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Present Address Village Minminiya, Police Station Bodla, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29/2025, whereby the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been partly allowed and the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 present applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application. Hence, this criminal revision. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant, instituted an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking maintenance. It was pleaded that at the time of marriage, her parents had provided customary household articles, gold and silver ornaments and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- as per the demand raised by the applicant and his family members. It was further alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to continuous physical and mental cruelty on account of alleged inadequacy of dowry and persistently demanded a motorcycle and thereafter an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the non-applicant, she was assaulted on several occasions, was subjected to harassment and humiliation and the applicant also refused to maintain normal matrimonial relations with her. She further alleged that on 10.05.2022, the applicant attempted to cause her death by pushing her from the roof, resulting in multiple injuries, whereafter on 11.05.2022, her parents took her back to her parental home, where she has been residing ever since. 3. It was further pleaded that despite intervention by the police and assurance given by the applicant that he would not repeat such acts, the cruelty continued unabated, compelling her to lodge a complaint before the Women's Police Station, Kawardha, pursuant 3 to which Crime No.141/2024 was registered against the applicant and his family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the criminal case remained pending before the competent Court. It was also averred that the non-applicant has no independent source of livelihood and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant is employed as a Professor at Sonkar College, Mungeli, earning approximately Rs.35,000/- per month, besides having substantial income from agricultural land and other agricultural assets. On these averments, she prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and filed his detailed reply denying all the allegations levelled against him. It was contended that neither he nor his family members had ever demanded dowry or subjected the non-applicant to any cruelty. According to him, sufficient gold and silver ornaments were gifted to the non-applicant at the time of marriage and the marital relationship had been duly consummated. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home on several occasions and ultimately started residing at her parental home of her own accord since May, 2022. The applicant asserted that despite repeated requests made by him and his family members, including personal visits and counselling proceedings, the non-applicant refused to resume cohabitation. He further pleaded that the non-applicant is a highly qualified lady possessing degrees of B.Ed., M.A. (Political Science), M.A. (Hindi Literature), 4 PGDCA and has also qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). According to him, she is employed as a teacher in a private school and earns approximately Rs.10,000/- per month. It was also specifically denied that he is working as a Professor earning Rs.35,000/- per month. On the contrary, it was stated that he is working merely as an Instructor in Sonkar Private ITI, Mungeli and earns only Rs.9,000/- per month. On these grounds, dismissal of the maintenance application was prayed for. 5. The learned Family Court concerned, after framing the necessary issues and appreciating the pleadings, oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and directed the present applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed manifest illegality in partly allowing the maintenance application without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. It is argued that the non-applicant is a highly educated and well-qualified lady possessing professional qualifications including B.Ed., two postgraduate degrees, PGDCA and TET qualification and is gainfully employed as a teacher in a private school earning approximately Rs.10,000/- per month, therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself. It is further 5 submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is merely working as an Instructor in a private ITI and earns only Rs.9,000/- per month and, therefore, directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance is wholly unreasonable and beyond his financial capacity. It is also contended that the non- applicant voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without any sufficient or justifiable cause and despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to resume cohabitation. Learned counsel further submits that the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code have already been quashed by this Court in CRMP No.805/2026 and, therefore, the allegations of cruelty cannot be made the basis for grant of maintenance. It is lastly contended that the learned Family Court has failed to properly evaluate the income, financial status and liabilities of the parties and has mechanically awarded maintenance without assigning cogent reasons. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order along with the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. The learned 6 Family Court recorded a finding that the relationship between the parties as husband and wife is admitted and the non-applicant was residing separately for sufficient reasons. The learned Family Court further held that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain the non-applicant and considering the material available on record as well as the financial status of the parties, awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which was found to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned order after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 10. Consequently, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court forthwith for information, necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal