1 CGHC010482892025 2026:CGHC:36653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1386 of 2025 Vivek Modi (In Person) S/o Arjun Modi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Talwapara, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koria (C.G.) Mo.No.- 6269492165 ... Applicant versus Swati W/o Vivek Modi Aged About 26 Years D/o Kedar Modi, R/o Tina Dafai, Ward No. 11, Charcha Colliery, Police Station, Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koria (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Modi. (in person). For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant/husband against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh Camp at Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.), in M.C.C. No.66/2025, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application preferred by the respondent/wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the BNSS”) and directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of institution of the application. 2 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Family Court, are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the applicant/husband. It was stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 28.11.2023 at Saket Sadan, Charcha Colliery, District Koria (C.G.), and thereafter they resided together as husband and wife. It was further alleged by the respondent that, after some time of the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family members in connection with demand for dowry. She alleged that the applicant assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home, whereafter she was taken to her parental home by her brother on 04.02.2024 and has been residing separately since then. It was also stated by the respondent that she had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which were decided in her favour. According to the respondent, despite the decree passed therein, the applicant did not resume matrimonial life. It was further stated that the applicant had instituted proceedings seeking divorce, which, according to the respondent, demonstrated his unwillingness to resume cohabitation with her. The respondent further pleaded that she had no independent source of income to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was earning approximately Rs.60,000/- per month as an Engineer and was also having agricultural land. 3. Upon service of notice, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations of cruelty, harassment and demand for dowry. He submitted that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after he came across her Instagram chats with one Aman Khande, which created serious doubts regarding her conduct and her intention to continue the 3 matrimonial relationship. The applicant further submitted that the payments made by the respondent's family were voluntary payments towards purchase of gold ornaments for the respondent and that the said ornaments remained in her possession. The applicant further submitted that he was not in regular salaried employment and was working as a delivery person with Zomato and Rapido, earning an irregular income of approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. He denied having an income of Rs.60,000/- per month as alleged by the respondent. He also submitted that efforts were made by him and his family to resolve the matrimonial dispute through senior members of the Modi community and a social meeting was convened on 06.02.2024, but none of the persons from the respondent's side attended the said meeting. After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 24.09.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of institution of the application. 4. The applicant in person/husband submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the actual financial condition and earning capacity of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has no fixed salary and is earning only approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month through gig work as a delivery person. It is further submitted that the applicant had produced documents relating to his occupation, including his Zomato identity card and E-Shram Card, but the same have not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Family Court has also failed to properly consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, while determining 4 the quantum of maintenance. According to learned counsel, the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month is disproportionate to the applicant's actual earning capacity. It is also submitted that the vehicle standing in the name of the applicant was purchased out of the retirement/terminal benefits received by his father, who had served with SECL for approximately 40 years, and therefore the said vehicle could not have been treated as indicative of the applicant's recurring income or financial capacity. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent is well educated, having completed M.A. in Sociology, and is physically fit. It is therefore submitted that these circumstances ought to have been considered while determining the quantum of maintenance. 5. The applicant in person further submits that he has already deposited arrears amounting to Rs.54,000/- which were payable to the respondent/wife. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance to the respondent. It is further submitted that the applicant/husband has already deposited the arrears payable to the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record with due circumspection. 8. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the relationship of husband and wife between the parties is subsisting and that the respondent has claimed maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available before it, found the respondent entitled to maintenance and awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. 5 9. Vide order dated 17.11.2025, this Court, as an interim measure, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards maintenance during the pendency of the present revision. The said interim direction was passed, inter-alia, considering the applicant’s consistent stand that he has no regular salaried employment and earns approximately Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a delivery person through Zomato and Rapido. The applicant has also placed on record documents relating to his occupation, including his Zomato identity card and E-Shram Card, which are relevant for assessing his actual and recurring earning capacity. Merely because the applicant holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, it cannot automatically be presumed that he earns an income commensurate with his educational qualification. 10. The applicant cannot be absolved of his liability to pay maintenance merely on the ground that the arrears have been deposited. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record regarding the applicant’s actual earning capacity, this Court, vide order dated 17.11.2025, as an interim measure, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance during the pendency of the present revision, until its final adjudication. 11. The amount of arrears of Rs.54,000/- has already been deposited by the applicant, and the said fact is not in dispute. In view of the deposit of the aforesaid arrears, the arrest warrant issued by the learned Family Court against the applicant in connection with non-payment of maintenance is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that the applicant shall regularly pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife in terms of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by this Court. 6 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned Family Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti