Maintenance Awarded to Wife and Minor Son Cannot Be Challenged Once Relationship is Undisputed

The applicant (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) were married on 30.06.2006.

The wife alleged harassment and dowry demands, leading her to reside separately with her children.

She filed an application for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) claiming Rs. 1,00,000 per month.

The applicant failed to appear before the Family Court and was proceeded against ex-parte.

On 29.12.2025, the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, awarded Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000 per month to the minor son (respondent no. 3).

The applicant challenged this order via criminal revision, arguing the wife has independent income as an advocate, left without cause, and that the order ignored principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in passing an ex-parte order of maintenance without providing the applicant an adequate opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether a major daughter is entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS in the absence of physical or mental disability.

3. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded (Rs. 5,000 total) was excessive or legally infirm.

The court applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the maintenance of wives, children, and parents (corresponding to Section 125 of the CrPC).

It adhered to the principle that a major daughter is not eligible for maintenance unless she suffers from physical or mental abnormality or disability.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the procedural and substantive guidelines for determining maintenance, including the assessment of income and liabilities, as established by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The High Court examined the Family Court’s findings and determined that the marital relationship and paternity were undisputed.

Regarding the major daughter (respondent no. 2), the High Court concurred with the Family Court’s refusal to grant maintenance due to her attaining majority without any proven disability.

Addressing the applicant’s grievance regarding the ex-parte nature of the trial, the court found that the applicant failed to appear despite notice.

On the merits of the quantum, the court noted that the total award of Rs. 5,000 per month for both a wife and a minor son was modest and could not be considered "on the higher side," regardless of the applicant's claims regarding the wife's profession as an advocate or his own limited private earnings.

It held that the wife and minor son are legally entitled to maintenance and the amounts awarded are reasonable.

The Court specifically upheld the denial of maintenance to the major daughter.

Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed for being devoid of merit.