1 2026:CGHC:2205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 59 of 2026 Manpreet Kaur W/o Ravinder Singh Gulati, D/o Ravinderpal Singh Chhabra Aged About 32 Years R/o Mohalla Bauripara, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ravinder Singh Gulati S/o Shri Sohan Singh Gulati Aged About 35 Years R/o Sukhmani Sethis, E-124 A Block, Near Green Field School, Sonari Jamshedpur, Police Station Jamshedpur, District : Jamshedpur, Jharkhand ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Astha Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the revision and grant the maintenance awarded to the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case are that the application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been 昀椀led by the applicant before the learned Family Court concerned seeking KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance from the non-applicant, who is the husband of the applicant. It is alleged that both parties belong to the Sikh community and are Hindus. The marriage of the applicant with the non-appearance was solemnized on 24.02.2019 in accordance with the customs and rituals prevailing in the Sikh community through the Anand Karaj ceremony at Gurudwara Sahib, Jamshedpur. Since then, both parties have been in a legally valid relationship of husband and wife. At the time of marriage, thirty tolas of gold worth approximately ₹30,00,000/-, household articles worth about ₹5,00,000/-, and furniture worth approximately ₹2,00,000/- were given to the non-applicant’s family with the intention that the said articles would remain in the non-applicant’s house for the use and bene昀椀t of the applicant and would be jointly used and enjoyed by both parties during their matrimonial life. Thereafter, for about one year after marriage, the parties lived peacefully in a shared household. The parents and sisters of the non-applicant were residing in the same house. Although the sisters of the non- applicant are married, they reside in Jamshedpur and assist in running their father’s business. After one year of marriage, disputes began to arise between the parties over trivial matters. Due to excessive interference by the sisters of the non-applicant, the non- applicant frequently quarreled with the applicant and found fault with her over minor issues. The applicant was subjected to constant pressure to bring money from her parental home. She had no 昀椀nancial independence in the matrimonial home and was repeatedly taunted and rebuked, often being told to seek 昀椀nancial assistance 3 from her parents. The parents of the applicant used to visit her and, whenever possible, paid amounts of ₹50,000/- and sometimes ₹1,00,000/- to the non-applicant in order to maintain peace between the parties. After one year of marriage, the family members of the non-applicant started pressurizing the applicant to conceive a child. However, when the applicant raised this issue with the non-applicant, he started distancing himself from her and stated that he had married her against his wishes and was unable to adjust with her and therefore did not want to plan for a child. Despite residing in the same room, the parties began living separately and no marital relationship remained between them. From the latter part of 2020, the behavior of the non-applicant towards the applicant deteriorated drastically due to the interference of his sisters. Whenever the sisters of the non-applicant went out, they would leave their children with the applicant, causing her extreme hardship in managing household chores. Even a slight delay in work would be reported by the mother-in-law to the non-applicant, leading to unnecessary arguments. Upon protest by the applicant, the non-applicant and his family members would stop speaking to her. The non-applicant also forced the applicant to sleep on the 昀氀oor in the same room. After the death of the applicant’s father-in-law, the parties shifted to Khaparkheda, where the applicant was continuously subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law, sister- in-law, and other family members. After the parents of the applicant returned to their home, the non-applicant began making false 4 allegations against the character of the applicant and spread false stories within the family alleging that she was involved in a relationship with another man. In order to conceal his own misconduct, the non-applicant falsely portrayed the applicant as infertile and incapable of bearing a child. As a result, the non- applicant’s family members stopped communicating with the applicant, causing her immense mental agony. When the applicant protested against the harassment, the non-applicant and his family denied her medical treatment when she fell ill. The applicant su昀昀ered from severe dental problems, yet no assistance was provided. On 24.11.2024, under the pretext of medical treatment, the non-applicant and his family brought the applicant to her parental home and left her there. When the applicant’s father attempted to communicate with the non-applicant’s family, the non-applicant and his father abused him and falsely accused the applicant of stealing gold jewellery from the matrimonial home, branding her as a thief. Subsequently, on the intervention of respected members of the community, the non-applicant admitted his mistake and assured that he would improve his behavior. However, no change occurred and the he continued to abuse and harass the applicant. The applicant is a housewife presently residing at her parental home and has no independent source of income. It is extremely di昀케cult for her to meet her day-to-day expenses. On the other hand, the non- applicant is 昀椀nancially well-o昀昀, being the owner of 7-8 shops, a mall, a hardware store in Jamshedpur, and also owns a residential 5 house. Having su昀昀ered continuous cruelty and neglect, and when the non-applicant refused to take the applicant back to the matrimonial home, the applicant was constrained to 昀椀le an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance. 3. After service of summons, due to the absence of the non-applicant, an ex-parte order was passed against him on 08.10.2025. Therefore, no reply has been 昀椀led on his behalf in the present case. 4. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed an ex-parte order dated 18.11.2025, whereby rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that she has failed to prove her case further without any su昀케cient cause she is residing separately, therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) is improper, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore deserves to be set aside/enhanced. It is submitted that considering the income, 昀椀nancial capacity, and social status of the non-applicant-husband, who is the owner of 7–8 shops and a mall at Jamshedpur, the applicant is entitled to adequate maintenance. She further submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in ignoring the testimony of the applicant’s father and proceeded in an arbitrary manner without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the applicant has been subjected to continuous verbal and physical cruelty by the non- applicant and his family members. The applicant is a housewife with 6 no independent source of income and is presently unemployed, due to which she is facing severe 昀椀nancial hardship in meeting her day- to-day needs, thereby adversely a昀昀ecting her livelihood. Therefore, she prays that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the evidence and overall circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the applicant failed to establish the essential prerequisites for claiming maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. It has been observed that the wife is residing separately from her husband without any justi昀椀able or su昀케cient cause. A fundamental condition for claiming maintenance, that the husband has given cause or compelled the wife to live separately, has not been satisfactorily proved by the applicant. In the absence of such proof, the applicant cannot be deemed entitled to maintenance. The Family Court, upon a thorough examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, has arrived at a well- reasoned, lawful, and justi昀椀ed conclusion in dismissing the claim for maintenance. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment, I do not 昀椀nd any illegality or in昀椀rmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to 7 be and is hereby dismissed. 10. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal