A maintenance order passed by a Family Court will not be interfered with in revision if it is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles, and the amount awarded is reasonable and just.

Order on Board

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of maintenance dated 09-01-2026, passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.11/2025 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.”

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant wife an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000 per month, inter alia stating that her marriage with the applicant husband was solemnized on 30.06.2024 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was further stated that prior to the said marriage, both the parties had been previously married and subsequently obtained divorce by mutual consent from their respective spouses. It is the case of the wife that after the marriage, they resided together at Village Bhanwarmara, however, within 2 to 3 months, the husband subjected her to cruelty and was allegedly involved in an extramarital relationship, on account of which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house. The wife further averred that the husband is working as Assistant Society Manager at Ranitarai earning approximately Rs. 40,000 per month, is also receiving rental income of Rs. 5,000 per month and has agricultural income of about Rs. 2,00,000, and on such basis claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying the allegations and contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause. During the proceedings, the wife examined herself as PW 1 and exhibited documents, while the husband examined himself as DW 1. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 whereby maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month was awarded to the wife non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and suffers from perversity and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has erred in granting maintenance in favour of the non-applicant wife without properly appreciating the fact that she has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and baseless. It is contended that the applicant has made several efforts to bring back the non-applicant wife and to resume cohabitation, however, she has refused to live with him without any sufÏcient cause. It is also submitted that no valid marriage was solemnized between the parties in accordance with law and they were merely residing together on a compromised basis, therefore, the grant of maintenance in such circumstances is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 after proper and detailed appreciation of the plea