Rejection of maintenance on hyper-technical grounds despite unrebutted evidence of neglect is legally unsustainable.

The applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband) were married according to Christian rites.

Following the marriage, the applicant alleged that the non-applicant subjected her to physical and mental abuse, excessive alcohol consumption, and an admitted extra-marital affair.

Upon contracting Tuberculosis (TB), the applicant alleged the non-applicant refused to provide financial assistance for medical treatment, forcing her to return to her parental home for care.

The applicant, having no independent source of income, filed for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The learned Family Court, Durg, proceeded ex-parte against the non-applicant due to his continued absence.

However, on 31.01.2026, the Family Court rejected the application, holding that the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence of cruelty or "sufficient cause" to reside separately.

1. Whether the Family Court adopted a hyper-technical approach by rejecting an unrebutted maintenance application in a summary proceeding.

2. Whether the denial of medical treatment and neglect during illness constitute sufficient cause for a spouse to live separately under Section 144 of BNSS.

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), governing the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

It relied on the settled legal principle that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and serve as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution.

The court further applied the doctrine that unrebutted evidence in ex-parte summary proceedings should generally be accepted unless inherently improbable.

The High Court observed that the non-applicant failed to appear despite service of notice, leaving the applicant's testimony regarding her illness (TB), the husband's neglect, and his financial capacity entirely unrebutted.

The Court criticized the Family Court for adopting a "hyper-technical approach" by demanding specific dates and instances of cruelty, which overlooked the summary nature of the proceedings.

It reasoned that the Family Court’s conclusion—that the applicant lacked sufficient cause to live separately—was unsustainable because it ignored the material fact of medical neglect and the husband's refusal to contest the allegations.

The High Court emphasized that the object of maintenance law is to ensure the survival of a legally wedded wife, and the lower court's dismissal resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

The Court held that the Family Court's decision was not sustainable in law given the unrebutted evidence and the summary nature of the case.

The matter was restored to its original number and remanded to the Family Court with a direction to proceed afresh and decide the application under Section 144 of BNSS expeditiously, preferably within three months.