1 CGHC010287492026 2026:CGHC:32319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 960 of 2026 Tushar Dewangan @ Banti S/o Late Bhojram Aged About 21 Years R/o Nayapara Khopli Road Utai Police Station Utai Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Priyanka Dewangan W/o Tushar Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Sunder Nagar, Kohka Street No.36, Ward No.11, Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 463/2025 by the learned 1st Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (CG.), in the interest of justice. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month, stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.01.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Sunder Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). It is stated that on 21.01.2025, the father of the non- applicant passed away. Consequently, the non-applicant went to her parental house and returned to the matrimonial home on 24.01.2025. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant and his family members started taunting and subjecting the non-applicant to mental and physical cruelty on account of her failure to bring sufficient dowry articles, a motorcycle, and cash amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. On 18.02.2025, the applicant allegedly abused and assaulted the non-applicant. Thereafter, the non-applicant lodged a written complaint before Police Station Utai on 27.02.2025. Subsequently, the parties were called by the Women Advice Centre for counselling, however, the non-applicant was not willing to resume cohabitation with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, claiming maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month on the ground that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicant, due to 3 which she has been residing separately and due to financial hardship she could not maintain herself. 4. The applicant filed his reply to the said application, denying all the allegations made by the non-applicant. It was contended that the applicant is an unemployed person. It was further submitted that the non-applicant is a well-educated lady who is conducting tuition classes and earning a sufficient income therefrom. It was also pleaded that the non-applicant earns rental income from her property and is employed at Surya Mall, thereby having sufficient independent means to maintain herself. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of application. 5. Before the learned Family Court, both the parties filed their affidavits under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and their cross-examinations were duly conducted. 6. After considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant/wife and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the non- applicant from the date of passing of order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and law. It is contended that while passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court failed to follow the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant 4 resided with the applicant only for a few days after the marriage and thereafter left the matrimonial home without any sufficient or justifiable reason. It is argued that the applicant has already instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and has made sincere efforts to bring back the non-applicant by initiating counselling proceedings as well as convening social meetings for amicable settlement, however, the non-applicant refused to resume cohabitation. Learned counsel further submits that the non-applicant is a well-educated lady, is gainfully employed, earns income by conducting tuition classes, receives rental income from her property and is also working at Surya Mall and therefore, is fully capable of maintaining herself. It is also contended that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate and marshal the evidence available on record and ignored the fact that the non-applicant did not produce any cogent documentary evidence regarding the income of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed by the non-applicant under Section 144 of BNSS. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the 5 applicant to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted above as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the records available on record and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal