1 2026:CGHC:10793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 319 of 2026 Devkishan Sahu S/o Late Sundarlal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Haldi Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Poornima Sahu (Sinha) W/o Devkishan Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Haldi Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Belaudi Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 /03/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.14/2025, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 24.04.2022 at Arya Samaj, Raipur. She alleged that after marriage, she was not accepted by the applicant’s family, was subjected to ill-treatment, and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing separately without any financial support and claimed that she has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is financially well-settled. The applicant denied the marriage and contended that he was intoxicated and taken to Arya Samaj by the respondent and her relatives, where his signatures were obtained without his knowledge or consent. He claimed that no valid marriage was ever solemnized and that the respondent later falsely asserted marital status. He further submitted that he has filed a civil suit seeking declaration that no marriage took place. However, the learned Family Court, by order dated 10.02.2026, partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent, which is under challenge. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erroneously granted maintenance to the respondent without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court failed to consider the specific plea of the applicant that no valid marriage was ever solemnized between the parties and that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. The pendency of the civil suit filed by the applicant seeking declaration that no marriage took place was also not duly considered. She further submits that the learned Family Court did not properly evaluate the evidence regarding the respondent’s earning capacity and her ability to maintain herself. The applicant had specifically pleaded that the respondent is capable of earning; however, the Court failed to give due weight to this aspect while passing the impugned order. She also submits that the learned Court erred in assessing the income of the applicant without sufficient proof and failed to consider the relative financial capacity of both parties while determining the quantum of maintenance. The provisions of Section 125 CrPC were not appreciated in their true spirit, resulting in an unjust and unsustainable order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 4 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance, holding that the marriage between the parties was duly solemnized at Arya Samaj, Raipur and stood supported by the marriage certificate as well as the admission of signatures by the applicant on the relevant documents. The Court found that the plea of fraud and intoxication raised by the applicant was not substantiated by any cogent evidence, and that he had neither lodged any complaint before the competent authorities nor taken timely legal steps challenging the marriage registration. Moreover, the learned Family Court further concluded that the respondent had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately on account of cruelty and neglect, and that she was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was an able-bodied and financially capable person possessing agricultural land and other sources of income. Accordingly, considering the income and status of the applicant, the Court held that he had neglected to maintain his wife despite having sufficient means, and therefore awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as reasonable maintenance, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil