Maintenance award upheld where revision fails to establish any illegality or infirmity in Family Court findings.

The applicant (husband), a Central Government Officer, challenged the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Raipur, in Criminal MCC No. 1376/2024

The parties married in 2008 and have two children

The applicant alleged that the respondent (wife) was involved in an extramarital relationship, which led to a divorce petition filed by him in Visakhapatnam on grounds of adultery

While the divorce proceedings were stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant based on WhatsApp service and awarded a total maintenance of Rs. 60,000 per month (Rs. 30,000 for the wife and Rs. 15,000 for each child)

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the wife was living in adultery, had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home, and that the maintenance amount was excessive

Whether the order granting maintenance of Rs. 60,000 per month was illegal, arbitrary, or excessive given the allegations of adultery and the circumstances of the parties

Whether the Family Court erred in proceeding ex-parte against the applicant based on WhatsApp communication without valid service of notice

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of maintenance to wives and children

It considered the legal principle that while a wife living in adultery may be disentitled to maintenance, such claims must be substantiated by evidence during the proceedings

The court further adhered to the standards of revisional jurisdiction, which limit interference to cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error

The High Court perused the record and the impugned order of the Family Court.

While the applicant raised several factual defenses—specifically the wife’s alleged adultery, her professional qualifications, and the improper ex-parte service via WhatsApp—the Court found that the Family Court had reached its conclusion after perusing the available evidence and hearing the witnesses

The High Court noted that the Family Court had duly considered the "conditions of both the parties" before determining the quantum of maintenance

The Court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any "illegality or infirmity" in the lower court's reasoning that would justify a reversal in a criminal revision

The Court upheld the maintenance award of Rs. 60,000 per month and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Family Court for compliance

Under Section 144 BNSS, the obligation to maintain the wife and children was maintained regardless of the pending matrimonial litigation elsewhere