The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s separation from her husband, without proven misconduct or abandonment, does not forfeit her statutory right to interim maintenance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judgment clarifies that financial dependency and the duty to maintain family members remain enforceable regardless of marital discord, absent clear evidence of unjustified desertion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Manish Sahu, is the husband of respondent No. 1, Smt. Bhumika Sahu, and father of respondent No. 2, minor Riya Sahu. The respondents filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking interim maintenance. The applicant denied all allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, asserting that his wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily without cause.
Key Facts
- The applicant and respondent No. 1 were married on 01.07.2019 in an Arya Samaj ceremony
- Respondent No. 2, their daughter, was born during the marriage
- Respondent No. 1 alleges sustained cruelty, dowry demands, and physical assault by the applicant and his family, leading her to leave the matrimonial home
- Respondent No. 1 has no independent source of income and is residing with her parents in Raipur
- The applicant claims to be employed as a manager at a marriage hall with a monthly income of approximately Rs. 35,000/- and earns Rs. 5,00,000/- annually from agricultural land
- The applicant submitted an affidavit denying all allegations and asserting that his wife left without reason and refused to return
- No documentary evidence of income or expenses was formally produced by either party
Procedural History
- 01.07.2019: Marriage solemnized
- 2025: Respondents filed application under Section 144 BNSS seeking interim maintenance
- 17.03.2026: Family Court, Raipur, passed order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month (Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- to respondent No. 2)
- 15.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 495 of 2026 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the Family Court’s order
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (1) setting aside the Family Court’s order dated 17.03.2026; and (2) reduction of the maintenance amount from Rs. 9,000/- to a lower sum, arguing that the wife’s unilateral departure and lack of proof of income rendered the award unjust.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s separation from her husband, without proven misconduct or abandonment, extinguishes her right to interim maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, and whether the Family Court erred in awarding Rs. 9,000/- per month without documentary proof of the applicant’s income.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Family Court ignored the applicant’s affidavit denying cruelty and the wife’s voluntary departure without cause. He contended that maintenance cannot be granted where the wife has left the matrimonial home arbitrarily, citing Rajnesh v. Neha to assert that entitlement requires cohabitation or justifiable cause for separation. He further argued that the maintenance amount was disproportionate, as the applicant supports his aged mother and other dependents, and that the Family Court relied on speculative income figures without documentary evidence.
For the Respondent
The respondents, through their counsel, maintained that the wife’s allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, though uncorroborated by documents, were not denied under oath and formed a prima facie basis for relief. They emphasized that Section 144 BNSS is remedial in nature and designed to ensure survival of dependents, and that the burden of disproving financial capacity lies with the husband. The minor child’s right to maintenance was also underscored as non-negotiable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose of Section 144 BNSS, noting that it is a statutory mechanism to provide immediate relief to dependents pending final adjudication. The Court observed that the Family Court had not relied solely on the applicant’s alleged income but had considered the cost of living, medical needs of the child, and the wife’s complete financial dependency.
"The mere fact that the wife has left the matrimonial home does not ipso facto disentitle her to maintenance, especially when the reasons for separation remain unproven and the child’s welfare is at stake."
The Court rejected the argument that documentary proof of income was mandatory, holding that in cases of domestic disputes, courts may rely on reasonable inferences drawn from the parties’ conduct, occupation, and social context. The applicant’s employment as a manager and ownership of agricultural land were sufficient to infer capacity to pay. The Court further noted that the maintenance amount was modest, considering the applicant’s claimed earnings and the dual obligation to support both wife and child.
The Court emphasized that Section 144 BNSS is not contingent on fault but on need, and that the Family Court’s discretion was neither arbitrary nor excessive.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 17.03.2026, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month as interim maintenance - Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- to respondent No. 2 - payable monthly until further order. The Court declined to reduce the amount, finding it reasonable in light of the child’s needs and the wife’s dependency. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Separation Alone Does Not Bar Maintenance
- Practitioners must argue that Section 144 BNSS entitlement is based on dependency, not marital fault
- A wife’s unilateral departure, without proven abandonment or misconduct, cannot be used to deny maintenance
- Courts will infer financial capacity from occupation, property ownership, and social standing in absence of formal income proof
Child’s Maintenance Is Non-Negotiable
- Maintenance for minor children under Section 144 BNSS is independent of parental disputes
- Even if the mother’s claim is contested, the child’s right to support must be prioritized
- Separate allocation for the child (Rs. 4,000/- here) is legally valid and often required
Reasonable Inference Permissible on Income
- Documentary proof of income is not mandatory under Section 144 BNSS
- Courts may rely on reasonable estimates based on profession, assets, and lifestyle
- Applicants must rebut such inferences with credible evidence - mere denial in affidavit is insufficient
