1 CGHC010381352025 2026:CGHC:36273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1148 of 2025 Manisha Jaiswal W/o Jaiprakash Diksena Aged About 25 Years R/o Pali, Current Address Village Khairwar, Police Station And Tehsil Pipariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jaiprakash Diksena S/o Ramswaroop Diksena Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pali, Near Bus Stand, Police Station, Tehsil And Post Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Jyoti Rathore, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. It transpires that Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the applicant, is stated to be on adjustment today. However, he is present before this Court and submits that, since he is available and ready to argue the matter, he may be permitted to advance his submissions. 2. Considering that the matter is an old one and, in the interest of e5ective hearing of the matter, as well as taking note of the fact that learned counsel for the applicant is present before the Court and is willing to argue the matter, the prayer made by learned counsel is RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 allowed. He is accordingly permitted to argue the matter. 3. This criminal revision has been 6led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (CG) in Case No.: 182/2024 and direct the non-applicant to pay maintenance to the applicant as prayed for in her application, in the paramount interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist/wife preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS, 2023”) before the competent Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent/husband. The said application was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.182/2024. It was the case of the revisionist that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 09.02.2021 in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals, customs and social ceremonies. She stated that at the time of marriage, her father had given various household articles and other articles according to his 6nancial capacity, valued at approximately Rs.4,50,000/-. According to the revisionist, soon after the marriage, disputes and quarrels started taking place between the parties and the respondent/husband and his parents subjected her to mental 3 harassment and ill-treatment. It was further alleged that she was repeatedly asked to go to her parental home and, in April, 2024, on the occasion of the marriage of her brother, she was sent to her parental home along with her grandfather and younger brother. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, the respondent did not come to take her back and she was constrained to reside at her parental home. 5. The revisionist further pleaded that during the aforesaid period she developed a knot/lump in her chest and underwent treatment and surgery at a hospital at Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, under the care of her parents. It was stated that the respondent/husband, along with his parents, visited her at the hospital but returned without taking her back to the matrimonial home. Even after her recovery, despite her repeated requests and requests made by her father, the respondent refused to take her back, allegedly stating that the ailment su5ered by her would spread to the members of his family. The revisionist asserted that she was willing and ready to reside with the respondent and discharge her matrimonial obligations, but the respondent refused to keep her with him and neglected to maintain her. She further stated that owing to her medical condition and the expenses incurred towards her treatment, she was unable to maintain herself. It was also pleaded that the respondent was aged about 29 years and was employed with SECL, Dipka Area, District Korba, as a Dumper Operator, earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month, besides approximately Rs.30,000/- towards overtime. She further referred to the alleged agricultural land, 4 residential and commercial properties and other assets of the respondent and his family and contended that the respondent had suDcient means to maintain her but had willfully neglected and refused to do so. On the aforesaid grounds, maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month was claimed. 6. The respondent/husband contested the maintenance application by 6ling his reply dated 03.03.2025 and denied the allegations made by the revisionist. He contended that the marriage was solemnized without any demand or acceptance of dowry and that the marriage expenses were borne by both sides. He further claimed that he had made repeated e5orts to bring the revisionist back to the matrimonial home, but the members of her parental family had prevented her from returning. He disputed the claim regarding his income and stated that although he was employed with SECL pursuant to acquisition of his father’s land by the Company, he was required to pay 60% of his salary to his father and, therefore, only a part of his salary remained available to him. He further alleged that material facts regarding the revisionist’s health condition, including her su5ering from a chest ailment and Hepatitis-B, had not been disclosed to him prior to the marriage. He also raised certain allegations regarding the name and educational/professional background of the revisionist’s father and stated that, on coming to know of the alleged suppression, he had initiated proceedings before the police and had also taken steps for dissolution of the marriage. It was his case that the maintenance application had been 6led after the revisionist became aware of such proceedings 5 and that she was residing separately without suDcient cause. 7. Upon consideration of the rival pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the necessary issue regarding the entitlement of the revisionist to maintenance and a5orded both sides opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence and to cross-examine the respective witnesses. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned Family Court recorded a 6nding that the respondent was employed with SECL as a Dumper Operator and was also a co-owner of the agricultural land exhibited as A/4. The learned Family Court further noticed the respondent’s admission regarding his monthly salary of approximately Rs.48,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and, considering his age of about 29 years, his employment with SECL and the absence of any material showing physical or mental incapacity, held him to be a person having suDcient means to maintain the revisionist. However, despite the aforesaid 6ndings, the learned Family Court awarded only Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the revisionist. Being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance so awarded, the present criminal revision has been preferred seeking enhancement. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the learned Family Court, having recorded a categorical 6nding regarding the respondent’s employment with SECL, Dipka Area, District Korba, and his monthly income of approximately Rs.48,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, has erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance, which is grossly inadequate and 6 disproportionate to the respondent’s income, earning capacity and 6nancial status. It is further submitted that the revisionist has no suDcient independent source of income and, owing to her medical condition and the treatment undergone by her, is unable to maintain herself adequately. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist has throughout expressed her willingness to reside with the respondent and discharge her matrimonial obligations, but the respondent has refused to take her back and has neglected to maintain her. It is, therefore, submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court deserves to be suitably enhanced. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for enhancement and submits that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record and the respective 6nancial circumstances of the parties, has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the revisionist/wife. It is submitted that the amount so awarded is just and reasonable and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the present revision be dismissed and the order passed by the learned Family Court be aDrmed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and the impugned order. 11. Considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the revisionist/wife had sought maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the learned Family Court, after 7 appreciating the evidence on record, found the respondent to be a person having suDcient means to maintain the revisionist and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondent’s employment with SECL and his monthly income of approximately Rs.48,000/- to Rs.50,000/- have also been noticed by the learned Family Court. Having regard to the respondent’s earning capacity, his employment, the reasonable needs of the revisionist and the overall circumstances of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, though rightly awarded, deserves some enhancement. However, the claim of the revisionist for Rs.30,000/- per month cannot be accepted in its entirety. 12. Accordingly, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, thereby making the total maintenance payable to the revisionist/wife Rs.8,000/- per month. The enhanced amount of Rs.3,000/- per month shall be payable by the respondent/husband with e5ect from 01.09.2026, in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month already awarded by the learned Family Court. The impugned order is modi6ed to the aforesaid extent. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed with the following directions:- (i) The maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of the applicant/revisionist-wife shall continue. 8 (ii) The respondent/husband shall pay an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant/ revisionist-wife with e5ect from 01.09.2026. Thus, the total maintenance payable to the applicant/revisionist-wife shall be Rs.8,000/- per month with e5ect from 01.09.2026. (iii) The remaining directions contained in the order passed by the learned Family Court regarding the mode of payment, date of deposit and costs shall remain unaltered. 14. Let a certi6ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan