Maintenance under BNSS is Awardable if Marriage is Proven and Refusal to Cohabit has Sufficient Cause

The applicant (husband) challenged the order dated 09-01-2026 passed by the Family Court, Kanker, which awarded ₹5,000 per month as maintenance to the non-applicant (wife).

The parties married on 30.06.2024 following previous divorces from their respective former spouses.

The wife alleged she was subjected to cruelty and an extramarital affair, forcing her to live at her parental home.

She claimed the husband earned approximately ₹40,000 monthly as an Assistant Society Manager plus rental and agricultural income.

The husband countered that the wife left voluntarily without cause and contested the validity of the marriage, claiming they were merely residing together on a "compromised basis".

1. Whether the Family Court committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in awarding maintenance to the wife under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance despite the husband's claim that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and that no valid legal marriage existed.

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the right of a wife to seek maintenance from a husband who neglects or refuses to maintain her.

Settled principles of law governing the grant of maintenance, which require a factual determination of the marital relationship, the sufficiency of the reason for separate residence, and the comparative financial capacities of both parties to ensure the award is "reasonable and just" and not "excessive or arbitrary".

The High Court examined the Family Court’s findings and determined that the lower court had performed a "proper and detailed appreciation" of the evidence and pleadings.

The Court noted that the Family Court specifically evaluated the marital status, the circumstances leading to the wife's separate residence, and the husband's income/earning capacity.

Regarding the husband's contention that the marriage was invalid or that the wife left voluntarily, the Court found that the Family Court’s conclusions were supported by the evidence on record, including testimonies (PW1 and DW1) and exhibited documents.

The High Court concluded that the maintenance amount of ₹5,000 per month was commensurate with the husband’s earning capacity as an Assistant Society Manager and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional infirmity.

The Court answered the issues by affirming the validity of the maintenance order and dismissed the revision petition.

The impugned order dated 09.01.2026 was upheld, and the trial court was directed to be informed for compliance.