1 2026:CGHC:18947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 549 of 2026 Pankaj Dahire S/o Shri Dalchand Dahire Aged About 37 Years Posted As Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) - Mainpur, District - Gariyband, Permanent R/o Ajad Nagar, Pandariya Road, Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Vedant Kumar Dahire (Minor) S/o Pankaj Dahire Aged About 3 Years Represented Through Mother i.e. Smt. Prerna Ahire, Permanent R/o Amlidih, Gomti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur, Posting Place - Civil Lines, Kachari Para, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Prerna Ahire W/o Pankaj Dahire Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As II Civil Judge Senior Division, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Amlidih, Gomti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur, Posting Place - Civil Lines, Kachari Para, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 .04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No.817/2025, whereby maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month was fixed for Respondent No. 1, Vedant Kumar Dahire. Since both parties are in government service and earned an income, they were directed to bear the said amount equally. Accordingly, the application filed by the respondents PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.25 19:42:54 +0530 2 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was partly allowed in favour of Respondent No.1, Vedant Kumar Dahire, and it was ordered that the applicant would pay half of the total maintenance amount, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month, from the date of the application, i.e., 30/04/2025. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the family of Respondent No. 2 (wife) was initially in search of a suitable groom and came to know about the Revisioner. However, while exploring better matrimonial prospects, they did not pursue the proposal for approximately one year. Subsequently, upon failing to find a suitable match, they again made inquiries about the Revisioner and approached his family with a marriage proposal. It is pertinent to mention that the Revisioner’s family was unaware of this prior hesitation. Thereafter, an arranged marriage was solemnized between Respondent No. 2 and the Revisioner on 03/12/2017, in accordance with Hindu religious customs and rites at Park Palace, Raipur, District Raipur. Prior to marriage, the Revisioner was in State Service and was posted at Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, where he discharged his duties diligently. Immediately after the marriage, and within merely two days, Respondent No. 2 expressed her unwillingness to reside with the Revisioner’s family at the matrimonial home situated at Takhatpur. She categorically stated that she preferred to reside at her parental home in Raipur, where she was accustomed to a more comfortable and affluent lifestyle. This conduct clearly indicated her intention to withdraw from matrimonial obligations at the very inception of the marriage. In January 2018, Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Judicial Officer in the Chhattisgarh Lower Judiciary and was posted at Jagdalpur, District Bastar. She joined her duties on 29/01/2018. Thereafter, despite repeated requests and efforts by the Revisioner, she never returned to 3 reside at the matrimonial home and continued to withdraw from cohabitation. She remained primarily focused on her employment and, until 2021, clearly expressed that she did not wish to have children. That, The Revisioner made sincere and repeated efforts to restore matrimonial harmony and requested Respondent No. 2 to join him. He also approached her during her visits to Raipur; however, she consistently refused cohabitation. Instead, Respondent No. 2 and her family exerted undue pressure upon the Revisioner to abandon his parental home and permanently settle in Raipur. In an attempt to salvage the marriage, the Revisioner stayed for a short duration in Raipur with Respondent No. 2; however, no improvement occurred in their relationship. Out of the wedlock, a male child, namely Vedant Dahire, was born on 27/09/2022 and is presently about 3 years old. The respondent’s family belongs to an influential and affluent background, and their conduct towards the Revisioner and his family was consistently indifferent and non- cooperative. The Revisioner, being the only son, has always been dutiful and has discharged his familial responsibilities with sincerity. However, such conduct was neither appreciated nor reciprocated by Respondent No. 2 and her family, thereby aggravating matrimonial discord. It has further come to the knowledge of the Revisioner that Respondent No. 2 and her family do not adhere to community norms. On several occasions, when community elders attempted to amicably resolve the dispute, they were met with misbehavior and threats. The Revisioner belongs to a simple family; his father is an agriculturist who worked hard to ensure the Revisioner’s bright future. Due to the distance between their respective places of posting and the pressure exerted by Respondent No. 2 and her father, the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Consequently, the Revisioner decided to seek a divorce and discussed the same with 4 Respondent No. 2. Initially, she agreed and stated that she would arrange for legal documentation and consult an advocate for mutual divorce. However, after the Revisioner filed a divorce application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 25/03/2025 before the Family Court at Bilaspur (registered as Case No. 211/2025), she objected to the same after consulting her father. Immediately thereafter, with an oblique motive to harass the Revisioner and exert pressure, she lodged a false and frivolous complaint dated 26/03/2025 before the Mahila Police Station, Raipur, as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings. 3. Based on the written complaint, the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Thana, Raipur, registered an FIR dated 23/04/2025 at 20:49 hrs against the Revisioner and his family members under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the BNS, without conducting any preliminary inquiry and in a biased manner, allegedly to favor the complainant. The Revisioner and his family members were granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 01/05/2025 (B.A. No. 1079/2025) and 24/06/2025 (B.A. No. 1716/2025) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur. The Revisioner and his family members filed CRMP No. 1640/2025 (dated 30/06/2025), CRMP Nos. 2266/2025, 2065/2025, and 2259/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court for quashing of the FIR. The FIR against all family members, except the Revisioner (husband), was quashed. With the intent to harass the Revisioner and in retaliation for the divorce proceedings, Respondent No. 2 filed proceedings under Section 144 BNSS for maintenance and a Section 9 application at Baikunthpur, showing her posting there. She deliberately used different addresses in multiple proceedings to compel the Revisioner to contest cases at different forums, causing mental and financial hardship. Due to the multiplicity of proceedings and the inconvenience caused, considering the Revisioner’s posting at Mainpur, 5 District Gariyaband, he filed Transfer Petitions (TPC Nos. 81/2025 and 77/2025). Respondent No. 2 also filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of the divorce case to Baikunthpur. All transfer petitions were heard together, and vide order dated 18/06/2025, all matters, including the divorce petition, were transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. After transfer, the divorce petition was re-registered as Civil Suit No. HMA-666/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. The Revisioner sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty (Section 13(1)(i-a)) and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, vide judgment dated 10/03/2026, the application was rejected. The Revisioner has filed FA(MAT) No. 121 of 2026 before the Hon’ble High Court, which is pending adjudication. Respondent No. 2 is earning a substantial salary and comes from an affluent family, and does not require financial assistance from the Revisioner. She has also not allowed the Revisioner or his family to have any involvement in the upbringing of the child. Despite the circumstances, the Revisioner has taken a life insurance policy (LIC) in the name of the minor child with an annual premium of Rs. 1,00,000, which he has been regularly paying without default. Respondent No. 2 has made no contribution to this policy. After learning about the divorce petition, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 144 BNSS before the Family Court at Baikunthpur (registered as PRO No. 674/2025), allegedly to harass the Revisioner, despite having the option to file the same at Bilaspur. 4. After transfer of the case, the Revisioner filed his reply. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09/03/2026 passed in Criminal M.C.C. No. 817/2025 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. By the said order, the court partly allowed the maintenance application filed by Respondent No. 2, rejecting 6 maintenance for the wife but granting maintenance for the minor child. The court directed both parents to pay Rs. 15,000/- each towards the child’s maintenance, which is excessive. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Respondent No. 2 (wife) herself deserted the Revisioner and his family without any justifiable cause. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the Revisioner is already discharging his parental obligations voluntarily, including payment of substantial LIC premiums of approximately Rs.1,00,000/- annually for the welfare and future security of the minor child. The quantum of Rs.15,000/- per month is excessive and disproportionate, considering that the child is of tender age and there is no evidence of extraordinary educational or medical expenses warranting such a high amount. The learned Family Court failed to consider the conduct of Respondent No. 2, who has deliberately chosen to reside separately and has compelled the Revisioner to engage in litigation at multiple forums, thereby increasing his financial and mental burden. The maintenance cannot be used as a tool of harassment or indirect punishment, particularly in the backdrop of multiple litigations initiated by Respondent No. 2. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the material facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Revisioner. The learned Family Court erred in law in awarding maintenance to the minor child to the extent of Rs.30,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- each), without properly assessing the actual financial capacity of the Revisioner and without considering the settled principles governing grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that Respondent No. 2 is a Judicial Officer in the Chhattisgarh Lower 7 Judiciary, drawing a substantial salary, and is fully capable of maintaining herself as well as contributing adequately towards the upbringing of the minor child. While rejecting the claim of maintenance for the wife on the ground of her sufficient independent income, the learned Court failed to proportionately assess the financial liabilities and obligations of both parents while granting maintenance to the minor child. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the minor child is presently residing with Respondent No. 2 (mother), who is financially well-off and belongs to an affluent family background; therefore, the financial burden imposed upon the Revisioner is excessive and disproportionate. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the Revisioner has been regularly contributing towards the welfare of the minor child, including maintaining an LIC policy in the child’s name with a yearly premium of approximately Rs.1,00,000/-, which reflects his bona fide intention and responsibility. The impugned order has been passed without properly considering that Respondent No. 2 has initiated multiple litigations at different places with mala fide intent to harass the Revisioner, resulting in unnecessary financial and mental burden. The learned Family Court failed to consider that Respondent No. 2 voluntarily deserted the Revisioner immediately after marriage without any justifiable cause and has continuously avoided matrimonial obligations. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Court is arbitrary, excessive, and not based on any cogent evidence regarding the actual expenses of the minor child. The learned Family Court failed to consider that Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed her true income and sources of earnings and did not make full and truthful disclosure regarding her salary, allowances, and other financial benefits, thereby misleading the Court. The learned Family Court failed to consider that Respondent No. 2 belongs to a financially strong and influential family 8 and receives continuous financial, social, and logistical support; hence, there was no justification for imposing a heavy financial burden upon the Revisioner. The learned Family Court failed to apply judicial mind while determining the amount of maintenance and did not record proper reasons for arriving at the figure of Rs.15,000/- per month from the Revisioner. The impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and the facts on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside or suitably modified by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the educational, medical, and other expenses of Respondent No. 1, Vedant Kumar Dahire, as well as the status of both parents, maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month is fixed for respondent No. 1, Vedant Kumar. Dahire. Since both parties are in government service and earn an income, they shall bear the said amount equally. Accordingly, the application filed by the respondents under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is partly allowed in favour of respondent No.1, Vedant Kumar Dahire. It is hereby ordered that the applicant shall pay half of the total maintenance amount, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per month, from the date of the application, i.e., 30/04/2025. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- payable by the applicant to respondent No.1, Vedant Kumar Dahire, shall be received by his mother, respondent No. 2, Prerna Ahire. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding 9 recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti