Maintenance award sustained where cruelty compels separate living and the claimant lacks independent income.

The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) were married in 2017 and have one minor child (respondent No. 2)

The respondents filed an application seeking maintenance of ₹20,000 per month, alleging that respondent No. 1 was subjected to dowry-related cruelty and harassment, forcing her to live at her parental home without an independent income

The applicant contested the claim, asserting that the wife left voluntarily, that a lump-sum settlement of ₹50,000 had already been paid, and that he was currently unemployed with other dependents to support

On January 29, 2026, the Family Court, Mahasamund, partly allowed the application, directing the applicant to pay a total monthly maintenance of ₹3,500 (₹2,000 to the wife and ₹1,500 to the child)

The applicant moved the High Court in revision to set aside or reduce this amount

1. Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in awarding maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. despite the husband's claim of a voluntary separation and prior settlement?

2. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹3,500 per month is excessive or arbitrary in light of the applicant's alleged financial hardship and unemployment?

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) [Note: Corresponding to Section 125 of the CrPC], which mandates that a person with sufficient means must maintain their wife and children if they are unable to maintain themselves

The court also relied on the principle that maintenance should be a "modest and just" amount based on a reasonable assessment of the husband's financial capacity and the needs of the dependents

The High Court observed that the marriage and the paternity of respondent No. 2 were undisputed

It found that the evidence on record sufficiently established that respondent No. 1 was subjected to cruelty, which constituted a "sufficient cause" for her to reside separately and seek maintenance

Regarding the husband's financial status, the court noted that the Family Court had already considered the applicant's pleadings—including his temporary employment at the Electricity Board and his other family responsibilities—and subsequently awarded a very "modest" sum of ₹3,500 per month

The High Court held that the applicant’s arguments regarding the lump-sum settlement and current unemployment did not override the statutory obligation to support his wife and minor child, especially as the awarded amount was not deemed excessive or arbitrary

The court affirmed the order for the applicant to pay ₹3,500 per month as maintenance and directed a copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance