1 CGHC010311852026 2026:CGHC:37832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1095 of 2026 Gevendra Sahu S/o - Late Rajkumar Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o - Village Bansankra, Thaana And Tehsil Simga, District -Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Mina Sahu W/o Gevendra Sahu, Aged About 22 Years Present R/o - Village -Bansankra, Tehsil And Thana Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Halmukam Village Eramshahi Thana Nandghat And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yaksh Sahu (Minor), S/o, Gevendra Sahu Aged About 2 Years Through Mother Smt Mina Sahu. … Non-Applicants For Applicant : Ms. Uttara Dewangan, Advocate through V.C. For Non-Applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.08.2026 1. The defaults pointed out by the Registry of this Court is waived o5. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in 9ling the revision. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 4. This criminal revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer : “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount awarded vide order dated 10-03-2026 passed by Learned Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), passed in case no. 240/2025, liable to be set aside. And the This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem 0t, in the interest of justice.” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that non-applicant No.1/wife instituted an application under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, seeking maintenance from the applicant/husband. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 18.02.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the applicant that from the very inception of the matrimonial relationship, the conduct and behaviour of non- applicant No.1 towards him and his family members was not cordial, as she frequently quarrelled with the applicant, created disputes in the matrimonial home and failed to take interest in household a5airs despite repeated requests made by the applicant to maintain cordial relations with the family. 6. The applicant has denied having subjected non-applicant No.1 to any form of physical or mental cruelty, harassment, abuse or dowry- 3 related demand. It is further the case of the applicant that on 19.01.2025, while he was away at his workplace, at about 10:30 p.m., non-applicant No.1 allegedly called one Ashish Banjare, resident of Village Mehna, to the matrimonial home, whereupon the parents of the applicant allegedly found both of them together in an intimate situation and informed the neighbours as well as the applicant. According to the applicant, upon being questioned, non- applicant No.1 and the said Ashish Banjare disclosed that they had known each other prior to the marriage and were in an intimate relationship even before the marriage, which relationship allegedly continued during the subsistence of the marriage. It is stated that thereafter, on 20.01.2025, non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. Subsequently, on 28.03.2025, the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was allegedly dissolved by way of customary divorce in the presence of both parties before the Sahu Samaj Parikshetra, Simga, stated to be the recognised community authority, wherein the designated members of the Tahsil and District Sahu Samaj pronounced the customary dissolution of marriage and directed payment of Rs.21,000/- to non-applicant No.1 towards the settlement amount, which was received by her, and further directed that non-applicant No.2/minor child would reside with his mother. It is further stated that despite the dissolution of marriage, the parents of non-applicant No.1 brought her to the applicant’s house on 05.07.2025, but as the applicant was not present and only his parents were at home, they informed the parents of non-applicant 4 No.1 that the marriage had already been dissolved and accordingly sent non-applicant No.1 back with them. The applicant therefore contends that non-applicant No.1 has been residing separately not because she was ousted from the matrimonial home, but on account of her alleged conduct and the subsequent customary dissolution of the marriage. It is further submitted that the applicant is facing 9nancial hardship and that the allegations made by non- applicant No.1 regarding his substantial income and ownership of agricultural land are incorrect and unsupported by any reliable material. The applicant has also disputed the allegation that he possesses agricultural land or has suCcient independent income to meet the amount of maintenance claimed. It is further the case of the applicant that non-applicant No.1 is not entitled to maintenance in view of the allegation that she has been living in adultery during the subsistence of the marriage and is continuing to reside separately with another man. 7. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order, directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to non- applicant No.2/minor child, totalling Rs.1,500/- per month. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition seeking interference with and setting aside of the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in awarding interim maintenance to non-applicant No.1 without properly appreciating 5 the material circumstances and 9nancial position of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has a meagre source of income and his earnings are barely suCcient to meet his own basic needs, and therefore he is not in a position to bear any substantial 9nancial burden. She further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the speci9c plea of the applicant that non-applicant No.1 had been living in an adulterous relationship during the subsistence of the marriage and, even after the alleged customary dissolution of marriage, has continued to reside separately in such relationship; therefore, in view of Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 had, during the matrimonial relationship, frequently abused and ill-treated the applicant and had voluntarily chosen to live separately from him, and there is no material to establish that she was ousted from the matrimonial home by the applicant. She submits that these material circumstances, coupled with the applicant’s limited earning capacity and inability to sustain any substantial 9nancial liability, were not properly considered by the learned Family Court while determining the interim maintenance. The learned Court ought to have duly considered the actual 9nancial condition, earning capacity and liabilities of the applicant before fastening upon him the liability to pay interim maintenance. The impugned order, therefore, su5ers from non-consideration of relevant facts and material circumstances and is liable to be set aside or suitably modi9ed. 6 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, rival submissions, material available on record and the circumstances of the parties, has rightly passed the order granting interim maintenance to non-applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2. The learned Family Court has appropriately considered the fact that non-applicant No.1 is the wife of the applicant and non-applicant No.2 is the minor child, and has awarded only a modest amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to non-applicant No.2, totalling Rs.1,500/- per month. The plea of the applicant regarding the alleged customary dissolution of marriage, the separate residence of non-applicant No.1 and the allegations of her alleged relationship with another man are matters requiring proper appreciation of evidence and cannot, at the stage of interim maintenance, be accepted merely on the basis of the allegations made by the applicant. Likewise, the applicant’s contention regarding his limited income and 9nancial diCculties has been considered in the context of the overall circumstances, and the amount awarded is not excessive or disproportionate so as to cause undue hardship to him. The mere assertion that the applicant has insuCcient income or that non-applicant No.1 is residing separately does not, by itself, justify denial of interim maintenance, particularly when the minor child is also entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court has thus exercised its discretion upon 7 consideration of the relevant material and has awarded a reasonable and minimal amount towards the basic sustenance of the wife and minor child. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. In view of the aforesaid, all the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Let a certi9ed copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan