[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Purane vs Smt. Shraddha Purane on 20 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:17864
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 483 of 2026
Deepak Purane S/o Late Yuvraj Purane Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Ufra, Post Gugheli, Tahsil Berla District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
versus
1 - Smt. Shraddha Purane W/o Deepak Purane Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Mudpar, Post Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District- Durg Chhattisgarh
2 - Gourav Purane S/o Deepak Purane Aged About 8 Years Minor
Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shraddha Purane R/o
Village Mudpar, Post Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District- Durg Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate
For Non-applicants : None.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
20.04.2026
1.
By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-
aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District-Durg Chhattisgarh in
Criminal Case No. 183/2025 or granted maintenance amount of Rs.
3000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Non-applicants have filed an
application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S before the learned
Family Court concerned, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.
10,000/- per month from the applicant. On 09.04.2009, the marriage
between the applicant and Non-applicant No.1 was solemnized in
accordance with Hindu customs and rites. After the marriage, Non-
applicant No.1 started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial
house as his legally wedded wife. Out of their wedlock, Non-
applicant No.2 was born. The case of the Non-applicant No.1, as
set out in the application is that after some time of marriage, the
applicant and his family members started harassing and subjecting
her to cruelty on account of insufficient dowry. It is further alleged
that the applicant committed marpeet (physical assault) with Non-
applicant No.1, used filthy language and made unlawful demands
for dowry. On account of the alleged cruelty and harassment, Non-
applicant No.1 left her matrimonial house and started residing at her
parental house along with Non-applicant No.2. It is further averred
by the Non-applicants that Non-applicant No.1 has no independent
source of income for her survival and that of Non-applicant No.2. It
is alleged that the applicant is employed in the private sector and
earns approximately Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and is
also possessed of agricultural land and therefore has sufficient
means to maintain the Non-applicants however, he refused to
maintain her and her child. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings,
the Non-applicants filed the aforesaid application under Section 144
of the B.N.S.S. claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
3. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned
Family Court and filed his reply, denying all the averments made in
the application. The applicant also filed his affidavit stating that Non-
applicant No.1 had left the matrimonial house on her own accord
without any sufficient cause and used to quarrel with the applicant
without any reason. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of said
application.
4. After considering the pleadings and material available on record,
the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 24.01.2026,
partly allowed the application of the Non-applicants and directed the
applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.
1,500/- each to Non-applicant No.1 and Non-applicant No.2. from
the date of filing of application. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned Family Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the
learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant
never subjected the Non-applicant No.1 to any cruelty and had
always made sincere efforts to maintain the matrimonial
relationship, however, Non-applicant No.1, without any sufficient
cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has been residing
separately without making any effort to return. It is further submitted
that the Non-applicants have failed to establish any justifiable
reason for living separately or to prove the alleged income of the
applicant by producing cogent evidence, yet the learned Family
Court, without proper assessment of the applicant's financial
condition, has arbitrarily awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per
month. It is also contended that the applicant is in a weak financial
position and is unable to pay the said amount. Therefore, in
absence of proof of neglect or sufficient means and considering that
Non-applicant No.1 is living separately without reasonable cause,
she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of B.N.S.S.,
and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with revision.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family
Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on
record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated
24.01.2026, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.
1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per
month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance
(total 3000/-) from the date of filing of application. While passing the
said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various
relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the
social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as
well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The
Family Court had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and
arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of
financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the
non-applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be
said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given
circumstances.
8. 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 concerned, I am of the view
that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or
infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting
interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
