Aasman Kashyap vs Smt. Dinamani Kashyap
2026 Latest Caselaw 1199 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Aasman Kashyap vs Smt. Dinamani Kashyap on 1 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                    1




                                                                     2026:CGHC:15107
                                                                                     NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        CRR No. 437 of 2026

            Aasman Kashyap S/o Harchand Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o
            Khaspara, Ghat Dhanora, Ghat Sargipal, P.S. Badanji, District- Bastar,
            Chhattisgarh.
                                                                              ... Applicant
                                              versus
            Smt. Dinamani Kashyap D/o Gautam Kashyap W/o Aasman Kashyap
            Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bade Aamabaal Khariyapara Bastar,
            P.S. Bhaanpuri, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ... Non-applicant

            For Applicant             : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate

                            Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                          Order on Board
            01.04.2026

            1.

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the

following prayer:

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

modified/set-aside the vide order dated

06.02.2026 passed by the Judge, Family RAHUL DEWANGAN Court, Bastar, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Digitally signed by RAHUL M.J.C No. 97/2025, wherein it was held by the DEWANGAN

court that while partly allowing application

under section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 maintenance amount

of Rs. 3000/- per month is granted to the non-

applicant/wife from the date of the application

for interim- maintenance; and the instant

Criminal Revision for waiving off the

Maintenance amount tune of Rs 3,000/- per or

prays that the said amount be suitably

reduced per month be allowed. This Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to pass any

other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of

justice."

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present criminal revision

has been preferred by the applicant/husband being aggrieved by

the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family

Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur in MJC No. 97/2025, whereby the

application filed by the non-applicant/wife under Section 144 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been allowed and

the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-

per month from the date of application. The non-applicant/wife had

filed the said application contending that her marriage with the

applicant was solemnized on 15.01.2023 at Gayatri Pragya Peeth,

Jagdalpur as per Hindu rites and customs, and after marriage she

resided with the applicant at his matrimonial home, where initially

their relations were cordial, however, after about ten months

disputes arose on account of alleged illicit relationship of the

applicant with other women, followed by harassment, assault and

demand of dowry, due to which she was compelled to leave the

matrimonial home and reside with her parents; she further pleaded

that she had no sufficient independent income and that the applicant

was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month, and thus

claimed maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied the entire

allegations and even disputed the factum of marriage, alleging false

implication and asserting that the non-applicant had illicit relations

with another person; however, during trial, the non-applicant

examined herself and other witnesses in support of the marriage

and cohabitation, while the applicant examined himself and one

witness denying the same. Upon appreciation of the evidence,

including the testimony of witnesses and the marriage certificate

issued by Gayatri Parivar, Jagdalpur, the learned Family Court held

that the marriage between the parties was duly established and that

the non-applicant was residing separately for sufficient cause, and

further held that despite her earning a nominal amount, she was

entitled to maintenance, and that the applicant had failed to rebut

his earning capacity, accordingly, the learned Family Court allowed

the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month

to the 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 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bastar at Jagdalpur in MJC No. 97/2025 is contrary to law, facts

and evidence on record and suffers from serious illegality and

perversity, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended

that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in holding that the

marriage between the parties stands proved despite the non-

applicant having failed to establish the factum of marriage by

cogent and reliable evidence, inasmuch as the alleged marriage

certificate issued by Gayatri Pragya Peeth, Jagdalpur was seriously

disputed by the applicant and was not proved in accordance with

law, nor was the issuing authority examined, and mere production

of such document cannot be treated as conclusive proof of

marriage. It is further submitted that the burden to prove a valid

marriage was upon the non-applicant, which she failed to

discharge, and the learned Court below has misread and

misinterpreted the evidence, ignoring material contradictions and

admissions made by the non-applicant during cross-examination,

as well as the defence evidence which clearly established that the

parties never lived together as husband and wife. He further

submits that the non-applicant is residing separately without

sufficient cause and therefore is not entitled to maintenance, and the

learned Family Court has also failed to properly assess the earning

capacity of the applicant, who is a daily wage labourer without any

fixed source of income, and has arbitrarily presumed his income

without any supporting evidence, while also ignoring the admitted

fact that the non-applicant herself is earning approximately

Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the essential

ingredients for grant of maintenance, including proof of valid

marriage and neglect or refusal to maintain, have not been

established, and the learned Court below has failed to apply the

settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 regarding determination of

maintenance. It is thus submitted that the impugned order has been

passed without proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal

principles, suffers from non-application of mind, and therefore

deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its

revisional jurisdiction.

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 rightly appreciated the pleadings and

evidence adduced by both the parties and has passed a well-

reasoned and legally sound order. The finding of the learned Court

below with regard to the existence of a valid marriage is based upon

proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including

the testimony of the non-applicant and her witnesses as well as the

marriage certificate issued by Gayatri Parivar, Jagdalpur, which

sufficiently establishes the matrimonial relationship between the

parties. The learned Family Court has also rightly concluded that

the non-applicant was residing separately for sufficient cause in

view of the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment, which

remained unrebutted in material particulars. Further, the Court

below has judiciously assessed the financial position of both parties

and, despite the claim of higher income, has awarded a modest and

reasonable sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance,

taking into account the earning capacity of the applicant as well as

the limited income of the non-applicant. The impugned order thus

reflects due application of judicial mind, proper appreciation of

evidence, and adherence to settled principles of law governing

maintenance.

6. 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

Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or

jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by

this Court.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court

concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan