1 2026:CGHC:16638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 481 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Kashyap Aged About 30 Years Resident Of House No. 08/02, Railway Colony Kota, Post Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shashi Kashyap W/o Surendra Kumar Kashyap Aged About 30 Years Resident Of No. 08/02, Railway Colony Kota, Post Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident Of Daihanpara, Near Pani Tanki, Village/post Rawan, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Laksha Kashyap S/o Surendra Kumar Kashyap Aged About 5 Years Minor Through- Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Kashyap Wife Of Surendra Kashyap (Applicant No. 1), Resident Of No. 08/02, Railway Colony Kota, Post Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident Of Daihanpara, Near Pani Tanki, Village/post Rawan, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Shivansh Kashyap S/o Surendra Kumar Kashyap Aged About 3 Years Minor Through- Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Kashyap Wife Of Surendra Kashyap (Applicant No. 1), Resident Of No. 08/02, Railway Colony Kota, Post Kota, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident Of Daihanpara, Near Pani Tanki, Village/post Rawan, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set- aside the impugned order of maintenance, passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1, who is the wife of the applicant, preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month before the learned Family Court. It was pleaded, inter alia, in the said application that the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “husband”) solemnized marriage with the non-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the “wife”) in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs on 27.04.2018. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, were born in the years 2019 and 2021 respectively. After the marriage, both parties resided at Village Darrabhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the house of the maternal uncle. The husband secured compassionate appointment after the demise of his father and was posted at Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). After some time of the marriage, disputes arose between the parties. It is alleged by the wife that the husband started harassing her on account of 3 demand of dowry. A meeting was convened wherein the husband assured that he would not harass his wife in future, however, despite such assurance, he continued to harass her for dowry. It is further alleged that the husband is involved in illicit relationships, including with his sister, namely Sunita, and other women. It is also alleged that the husband ultimately drove the wife out of the matrimonial home, as a result of which she is presently residing at her parental house situated at Village Rawah. The Non-applicant No.1/wife has further stated that her husband is employed in the Railway Department at Kota Station and is earning approximately Rs. 75,000/- per month. It has also been pleaded that the children are studying in school and considerable expenditure is incurred towards their education. Accordingly, the non-applicants sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month (Rs. 20,000/- for the wife and Rs. 10,000/- for the children). 3. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying all the allegations made in the application and stated that the non-applicant No.1 is residing at her parental home of her own volition. It is further pleaded that the wife harbours suspicion regarding his character and is acting out of animosity. It has further contended in his reply that he has already paid Rs. 3,90,000/- and thereafter Rs. 2,90,000/- to the wife and also paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to her brother. It is also submitted that he is earning Rs. 40,569/- per month and out of the said income, he is paying instalments of Rs. 7,478/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards loan liabilities, including a car loan. It is further contended that the wife is an educated lady and is earning 4 approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month from stitching work. Hence, the application for grant of maintenance deserves to be rejected. 4. The learned Family Court, after considering the evidence available on record, passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure A-1), whereby maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month has been awarded to the non-applicants from the date of passing of the order (Rs. 5000/- per month each). Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Non-applicant No.1/wife is residing separately at her parental home of her own volition without any sufficient cause and has levelled false and baseless allegations against the applicant. It is further submitted that despite several sincere efforts made by the applicant to bring her back to the matrimonial home, the wife has refused to cohabit without any justifiable reason. He further submits that the applicant has already paid substantial amounts to the wife, amounting to Rs. 3,90,000/- and Rs. 2,90,000/-, and also Rs. 1,00,000/- to her brother, and is presently earning only Rs. 40,569/- per month, out of which he is required to discharge loan liabilities and other necessary expenses. It is also submitted that the wife is an educated lady and is earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month from stitching work and is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, after deduction of all liabilities, the applicant is left with a meagre amount of about Rs. 7,000/- per month, and in such circumstances, the maintenance 5 awarded by the learned Family Court is highly excessive, unreasonable and beyond his financial capacity and thus deserves to be set aside or suitably reduced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 144 of the BNSS. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹15000/- per month to the non-applicants from the date of passing of the order (Rs. 5000/- per month each). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 6 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal