1 CGHC010218002026 2026:CGHC:34267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 727 of 2026 1. Arti Singh W/o Atul Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. E/124, Shristi Samridhi Colony Bodri P/S Chakarbhata District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Aviyana Singh D/o Atul Kumar Singh Aged About 5 Years (Minor) Under The Natural Gurdianship of Mother Arti Singh W/o Atul Kumar Singh - R/o House No. E/124, Shristi Samridhi Colony Bodri P/S Chakarbhata District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Atul Kumar Singh S/o Rajendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Jhotiya P/S Janehi Tahsil Tyothar, District - Rewa (M.P.) Presently Residing At Village Morga Prathmika Swasthya Kendra Morga Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been >led by the applicants seeking following prayer:- “1.call of complete record of the case MJC no. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.07 16:37:51 +0530 2 412 of 2025 in arti singh & another versus atul kumar singh, in the interest of justice. And 2.) It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 12/05/2026 in M. J. C. No. 412/2025, parties "Arti singh & another Vs. Atul Kumar singh" and grant the amount of maintenance in favor of wife/applicant no. 01 and enhance the maintenance awarded by the Id. Family court in favour of applicant no. 02, in the interest of justice. And l.e. from the date of 2ling of the application before the Id. 2nd additional principal judge Family court Bilaspur Chhattisharh 09/05/2025, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the admitted part of the case is that applicant No. 1 and the respondent are wife and husband. Out of their wedlock, one child, a daughter namely Ku. Aviyana Singh, aged about 5 years, was born. As per the case of the applicants, they >led an application for grant of maintenance as well as interim maintenance against the present respondent on the ground that the applicants are not able to maintain themselves and the minor daughter, and therefore both the applicants are dependent upon the maternal family. As per applicant No. 1, the present respondent/husband is working as a Government R.M.A. (Rural Medical Assistant) and is earning a handsome amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month (including allowances). The applicants have claimed Rs. 40,000/- per month towards >nal maintenance as well as interim maintenance during the pendency of the maintenance application under the appropriate provisions of BNSS. 4. On the application >led by the applicants herein, the respondent/husband 3 >led a reply before the Family Court denying the averments and pleadings made by the applicants. 5. After >ling of the application for maintenance, and in compliance with the judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha, both parties submitted their a@davits before the learned Family Court. 6. After evaluation of the reply on the interim maintenance application, the learned trial Court rejected the interim maintenance application >led by applicant No. 1 on the ground that the husband/respondent has purchased a house for which he is paying an EMI of Rs. 15,000/- per month and is also paying the school fees of applicant No. 2. However, the learned Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of applicant No. 2. 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court, the applicants challenged the order dated 27/11/2025 before this Hon’ble Court. Vide order dated 19/01/2026, this Hon’ble High Court did not interfere with the order dated 27/11/2025 but disposed of the petition with a direction to the learned Family Court to conclude the case within a period of three months from the date of the order. 8. After the directions issued by this Hon’ble High Court, the learned Family Court expedited the trial. Both parties examined their witnesses before the Family Court. After evaluation of all facts and circumstances available on record, the learned Family Court vide order dated 12/05/2026 passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of applicant No. 2 and dismissed the claim of applicant No. 1. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is manifestly illegal, perverse, contrary to the facts available on record and the settled principles of law, and has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. He submits that the the learned Family Court committed a grave 4 error in holding that applicant No. 1 failed to prove cruelty and a justi>able reason for living separately. The learned Court gave undue weightage to the delay in lodging the FIR regarding dowry harassment, completely ignoring the fact that a wife in Indian society may endure cruelty for years in order to protect the sanctity of her marriage and may approach the authorities only as a last resort. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the FIR was the culmination of a decade of suEering. He also submits that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the standard of proof in a proceeding under Section 144 of the BNSS is based on the preponderance of probabilities and not on the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” applicable to a criminal trial. The consistent and cogent testimonies of applicant No. 1 (AW-01) and her mother (AW-02) regarding dowry demands and harassment were su@cient to establish a prima facie case of cruelty, which the learned Court erroneously discarded on Himsy and unsustainable grounds. He further submits that the >nding that applicant is not entitled to maintenance as she is “highly educated” and “capable of supporting herself” is patently erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent made a bald allegation that applicant No. 1 earns Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month from a beauty parlour, but failed to produce any evidence, such as income-tax returns, bank statements, registration documents, or any other material, to substantiate the said allegation. The burden of proving the income of the wife was upon the respondent, which he failed to discharge. He submits that the learned Court ignored the material contradictions and lack of evidence in the testimony of the respondent. The respondent alleged that applicant No. 1 had undergone self-induced abortions but failed to produce any medical records in support thereof. He further alleged that she was working as a 5 teacher but produced no document or other evidence to establish such employment. Such unsubstantiated and malicious allegations themselves amount to mental cruelty, a material aspect which has been completely overlooked by the learned Court. He submits that the learned Court failed to consider that the respondent himself admitted during his cross- examination, particularly in paragraph 66, that his gross monthly salary is Rs. 79,640/-. He also admitted that he has multiple LIC policies and other investments. In view of his admitted income and his status as a Government Doctor, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the award of a meagre amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the minor child are unjust, inadequate and inequitable. The maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month awarded in favour of the minor daughter, i.e., applicant No. 2, is grossly inadequate. The learned Court itself noted that the annual school fees of the child are Rs. 46,000/- and that other expenses amount to approximately Rs. 25,000/-. The amount awarded is insu@cient to meet her educational, medical, nutritional and other essential needs and does not enable her to maintain a standard of living commensurate with the status and income of her father. The learned Court failed to draw an adverse inference against the respondent in view of his conduct, including >ling and subsequently withdrawing a petition for judicial separation and attempting to introduce electronic evidence in the form of a video without complying with the mandatory legal requirements, as admitted by him during his cross-examination. It is a settled principle of law that maintenance awarded under Section 144 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is ordinarily payable from the date of the application and not merely from the date of the >nal order. However, contrary to the settled position of law, the learned Family Court has directed that the maintenance shall be payable only from the date of 6 the order, i.e., from 12.05.2026, thereby causing grave prejudice to the applicants. He lastly submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that, admittedly, the father-in-law of applicant No. 1 is a retired Revenue O@cer (Deputy Commissioner) and is receiving pension. He also possesses su@cient agricultural land and other resources which are adequate for the maintenance and medical treatment of the father-in- law and mother-in-law. Therefore, there is no >nancial dependency of the parents upon the Respondent/husband, and the learned Court ought to have properly considered this material circumstance while determining the Respondent’s >nancial capacity and liability to maintain the applicants. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. 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, partly allowed the application >led under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month to applicant No. 2, while rejecting the claim for maintenance made by applicant No. 1 on the ground that she had neither disclosed any justi>able reason for living separately from the respondent nor produced any cogent evidence in support thereof. The learned Family Court further observed that the evidence on record established that applicant No. 1 is a highly educated woman and is capable of maintaining herself. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the >nding recorded by 7 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 impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek