The High Court affirmed that a Family Court's order granting maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, based on recorded evidence and witness statements, will not be interfered with in a criminal revision unless it suffers from manifest illegality or infirmity.

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI

Digitally signed by

Order on Board

RAJSHEKHAR

SONI

1. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is present.

2. Heard on IA No.02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay for filing the present revision.

3. On due consideration, IA No.02/2026 is allowed, and the delay is condoned.

4. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 388/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent.

5. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent is the husband and wife and it is admitted position in the case the marriage of the parties was taken place on 21.04.2022 as per the custom prevailing in the community. As per the averment made in the application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. the marriage of the applicant was taken place with the respondent and after marriage, applicant started harassing her, started to beaten the respondent and demanded dowry, so she started to resides with her parents. Due to harassment of the applicant she started to resides with her parents and after some time when the applicant is not taking the care and not provided any amount for the purpose of maintenance of the respondent, then she file the application under Section 144 of the BNSS on 03.10.2023 with claiming a maintenance of total Rs. 20,000/- per month.

6. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent has left the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason and with her own free will, thus, as per the provision contained under Section 144(4) of BNSS, she is not entitled to be granted maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed.

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

9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that no such good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and thus after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court.

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any.