1 CGHC010194262025 2026:CGHC:37115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 660 of 2025 Kanhaiya Chauhan S/o Ramsai Chauhan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Basen, Post Ghoghar, PS - Kansabel, Tehsil - Bagicha, District Jashpur, (C.G.). O3ce Address - R.H.O, Up Health Center, Raikera (Ramsagar), Tehsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Madhuri Chauhan W/o Kanhaiya Chauhan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Kurkuga, PS - Narayanpur, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Trisha Chauhan D/o Kanhaiya Chauhan Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Madhuri Chauhan W/o Kanhaiya Chauhan Aged About 32 Years. R/o Village - Kurkuga, PS - Narayanpur, Tehsil - Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Nayra Chauhan D/o Kanhaiya Chauhan Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Madhuri Chauhan W/o Kanhaiya Chauhan Aged About 32 Years. R/o Village - Kurkuga, PS - Narayanpur, Tehsil- Kunkuri, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Janardan, learned counsel, appearing for ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.20 11:28:03 +0530 2 the respondents. 2. The present revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 29/4/25 (Annexure A-2) in the interest of justice. Any other relief/ reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem )t and proper in the lights of facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents <led an application under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking maintenance from the applicant, stating therein that the marriage between the respondent No. 1 and the applicant was solemnized on 16.06.2013 and that, thereafter, two daughters were born out of the wedlock. It was further stated that, due to the cruelty meted out by the applicant, respondent No. 1 was compelled to live separately from her husband along with her daughters. 4. After service of notice upon the applicant, he <led his reply, denying the allegations levelled by respondent No. 1/wife and stating that he had never committed any act of cruelty towards her. In fact, the respondent No. 1/wife had never performed her matrimonial duties and, without any su3cient cause, left the applicant. It is pertinent to mention that a decree of divorce has already been granted by the learned Family Court. The divorce proceedings initiated by the applicant were allowed, wherein a <nding was recorded, based upon the admission of respondent No. 1, that the parties had been living separately since 2016. Accordingly, desertion was held to be proved and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the applicant. 3 5. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, the learned Court, while deciding the maintenance application, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court committed an error by failing to consider the settled legal position that the respondents are required to prove the income of the applicant, which has not been proved in the present case. He submits that the learned Court failed to appreciate that, vide order dated 28.06.2024, a decree of divorce was granted by the learned Family Court and the appeal against the said order is presently pending consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. The learned Court committed an error by failing to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, wherein it has been held that the parties are required to furnish an a3davit disclosing their income and other relevant particulars in the prescribed format annexed to the said judgment. However, the said requirement has not been complied with in the present case. He also submits that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the applicant and respondent No. 1 have been living separately since 2016 and that there has been no cohabitation between them thereafter. Therefore, the question of the applicant being the father of respondent No. 3 is disputed, and the same has not been properly considered by the learned Court. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that in the divorce proceedings, while granting the decree of divorce, the learned Family Court also awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 7,00,000/- to respondent No. 1. Therefore, in view of the grant of permanent alimony, the application seeking maintenance was not maintainable in 4 the manner in which it was <led. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled by the respondents against the applicant are false, bald, vague and unbelievable, and such allegations, in fact, constitute mental cruelty towards the applicant rather than establishing any cruelty on the part of the applicant against the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is clear that the respondents have su3cient means to maintain themselves. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application <led by the respondents under Section 144 of the BNSS. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whereas the application for grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, in respect of respondent No. 1, was rejected. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity or jurisdictional error in the 5 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek