1 CGHC010220162026 2026:CGHC:37108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 721 of 2026 Yasif Khan S/o Usman Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Bharatpur Saja Thana And Tehsil Saja District Bemetara C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Husna Khan W/o Yasif Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Bharatpur Saja Thana And Tehsil Saja District Bemetara C.G. At Present R/o Ward No. -12, Pandatarai Thasi Pandariya District Kabeerdham C.G. 2 - Ku. Humaira Khan D/o Yasif Khan Aged About 2 Years No.-2 Is Minor Through About Her Guardian Mother Smt, Husna Khan W/o Yasif Khan Aged About 25 Years Both Are R/o Ward No. 05, Bharatpur Saja Thana And Tehsil Saja District Bemetara C.G. At Present R/o Ward No. 12 Pandatarai Thasi-Pandariya District Kabeerdham C.G. … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 2led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It is therefore, prayed that, the revision petition RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 may kindly be set aside and the application "led by the non applicants under section 144 of BNSS may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the applicant and non- applicant No.1 are husband and wife, and it is an admitted position that their marriage was solemnized on 06.02.2020 in accordance with the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. It was pleaded by the non-applicants in their application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”), that after the marriage, the applicant subjected non- applicant No.1 to physical and mental harassment, assaulted her and made demands for dowry, on account of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. It was further alleged that despite the non-applicant residing separately at her parental home, the applicant neither made any e>ort to take care of her nor provided any 2nancial assistance towards her maintenance and day-to-day expenses. It was also pleaded that the applicant, despite having su@cient means, neglected and failed to maintain the non-applicants, compelling them to seek recourse to the statutory remedy available under Section 144 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the non-applicants preferred an application before the learned Family Court on 06.02.2025, seeking maintenance of a total amount of Rs.30,000/- per month from the applicant. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material available on record and after hearing the parties, the 3 matter was 2xed for arguments, whereafter the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, awarded maintenance in favour of the non-applicants at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and Rs.1,500/- per month, respectively, totaling Rs.4,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance so awarded by the learned Family Court, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition seeking appropriate relief against the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed an error in awarding a total amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the non- applicants, despite the fact that non-applicant No.1/wife failed to establish any su@cient or legally sustainable ground for residing separately from the applicant and, therefore, was not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 is engaged in gainful employment and has an independent source of income su@cient to maintain herself. He further submits that non- applicant No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental home of her own accord, despite the applicant being ready and willing to reside with her, and therefore, the grant of maintenance is contrary to the settled principles governing maintenance. It is also submitted that in connection with the criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the IPC, the applicant has already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to non-applicant No.1 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.835/2025, which ought to have been taken into consideration 4 and adjusted while determining the maintenance payable to her. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary material available on record and has awarded maintenance without there being any cogent proof regarding the actual income or 2nancial capacity of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is only 29 years of age and is working in private employment, earning merely about Rs.6,000/- per month, and therefore, the amount awarded is beyond his actual 2nancial capacity. He also submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles governing determination of maintenance as laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the principles enunciated in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modi2ed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced during the proceedings and the material available on record, has rightly appreciated the respective claims and contentions of the parties and has recorded a 2nding regarding the entitlement of non-applicant No.1 to receive maintenance from the applicant. The learned Family Court has duly considered the admitted matrimonial relationship between the parties, the 5 allegations regarding harassment and the circumstances leading to their separate residence, as well as the respective submissions of the parties regarding their 2nancial condition and means of livelihood. The learned Court has also considered the applicant’s defence that non-applicant No.1 was residing separately of her own accord and had an independent source of income, but upon appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has not found the said defence su@cient to disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the needs of the non-applicants vis-à-vis the 2nancial capacity of the applicant, has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to the other non-applicant No.2, totaling Rs.4,000/- per month. The amount so awarded cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate, particularly having regard to the reasonable needs of the non-applicants and the obligation of the applicant to maintain them. The 2ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. The grounds raised by the applicant essentially seek re- appreciation of the evidence and substitution of the view taken by the learned Family Court, which is not warranted in the absence of any manifest error in the impugned order. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 2nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 6 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in2rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi2ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan