[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Naveen Kumar Tiwari vs Smt. Bharti Tiwari on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10319
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 305 of 2026
Naveen Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Pradumnath Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Pamgarh, Thana And Tahsil Pamgarh, Distt.- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1. Smt. Bharti Tiwari W/o Naveen Kumar Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o
Irani Mohalla, Infront of Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda,
Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Ku. Tanya Tiwari D/o Naveen Kumar Tiwari Aged About 8 Years Minor
Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bharti Tiwari, R/o
Irani Mohalla, Infront of Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda,
Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Tushir Tiwari S/o Naveen Kumar Tiwari Aged About 6 Years Minor
Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bharti Tiwari, R/o
Irani Mohalla, Infront of Sulabh Sauchalaya, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda,
Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
Digitally
signed by
For Applicant : Mr. Damrudhar Yadav, Advocate.
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.02.28
10:40:38
+0530
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Damrudhar Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the
applicant.
2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following
prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order
dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned
First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur,
in MJC No. 419/2025, in the interest of justice"
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent No. 1 are
husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2016
according to Hindu rites and customs and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were
born out of their wedlock. It was alleged before the learned Family Court
that after the marriage, the applicant and his family members used to
demand dowry and subject respondent No. 1 to mental cruelty. On this
ground, she allegedly left the matrimonial house along with her children in
March, 2024 and is presently residing with her parents. It was further
alleged that the applicant is working as a Clerk in the Janpad Panchayat
and is earning a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month. On this basis, she
prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
4. The applicant submitted his detailed reply before the learned Family
Court and denied all the allegations made in the application under
Section 144 and the application for interim maintenance filed by the
respondents. He specifically denied the averment regarding his
employment, stating that he is not working as a Clerk in the Janpad
Panchayat but is working as a Peon and is earning a salary of Rs.
11,000/- per month. The applicant further submitted that he belongs to a
respectable family and is not in need of any dowry. It was also stated that
respondent No. 1 insisted on keeping her parents and brother with her in
the matrimonial home, and when the applicant refused, she would
frequently quarrel with him. Without informing the applicant and his family
members, respondent No. 1 took respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were
attending school, to her parental home at Chatidih, Bilaspur. The
applicant went there to bring them back, however, respondent No. 1
refused to return.
5. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the material available on
record, partly allowed the application and held that the respondents had
proved their case to some extent. Accordingly, vide order dated
31.01.2026 passed in MJC No. 419/2025, the learned Family Court
directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per
month to respondent No. 1, Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2, and
Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 3, totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interim maintenance
granted vide order dated 31.01.2026 is high and excessive considering
the income of the applicant, and therefore the same is liable to be
reduced. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the
documentary evidence filed by the applicant, which clearly reflects that
his actual salary is Rs. 11,000/- per month, and erroneously relied upon
the vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by respondent No. 1.
He submits that under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), an essential requirement for grant of maintenance is
that the husband must have "sufficient means." The learned Court below
did not record any specific or clear finding that the applicant has sufficient
independent means to pay the amount awarded. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569) has held that the income,
liabilities, and assets of both parties must be properly assessed before
determining maintenance. He also submits that there is no finding in the
impugned order that respondent No. 1 is living separately for "sufficient
cause." It is a settled principle of law that if the wife leaves the
matrimonial home without reasonable and sufficient cause, she is not
entitled to claim maintenance. The respondent No. 1 has made false
allegations against the present applicant and his family members. She
herself left the matrimonial home without any justified reason, whereas
the applicant is still willing and ready to keep her with him and discharge
his marital obligations. He also submits that the impugned order is cryptic
in nature and does not discuss the pleadings and documents filed by the
applicant in detail. Judicial discretion must be exercised with due
application of mind and supported by cogent reasons.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment
of the learned Family Court.
8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family
Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence
adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under
Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court,
upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the
interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1, Rs.
500/- per month to respondent No. 2, and Rs. 500/- per month to
respondent No. 3, totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month.
9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price
index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents
cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by
this Court in the present revision petition.
10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed.
11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
