Wife leaving matrimonial home voluntarily without proving specific allegations of cruelty is not entitled to maintenance.

The applicants (wife and minor son) filed a revision against the Family Court, Ambikapur's order dated 21.01.2026.

The wife alleged that following their marriage on 09.05.2022, the respondent demanded dowry, maintained an illicit relationship, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.

She claimed the respondent had multiple income sources (grocery shop, agriculture, and property).

The Family Court partially allowed the application, granting ₹3,000 per month to the minor son (Applicant No. 2) but rejected the wife's claim (Applicant No. 1), finding she failed to prove sufficient cause for living separately.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance claim of the wife on the grounds of failing to prove sufficient cause for separate residence.

2. Whether the maintenance amount of ₹3,000 awarded to the minor child was inadequate based on the respondent’s earning capacity.

The court primarily 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 relied on the principle that a husband/father has a statutory obligation to maintain his minor child regardless of matrimonial disputes.

The law further requires a wife seeking maintenance to establish a "sufficient and reasonable cause" for living separately if the husband is willing to maintain her, and allegations of cruelty must be supported by specific, reliable evidence rather than vague assertions.

The High Court observed that the Family Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

The wife's allegations of dowry demand and illicit relationships were deemed "vague and unsupported by specific dates" or reliable proof.

Crucially, the court noted the wife’s own admission during cross-examination that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily after a compromise, indicating a lack of willingness to reside with the respondent without justifiable legal cause.

Regarding the minor child, the court held that as the respondent is an "able-bodied person" capable of labor, the assessment of his income at approximately ₹10,000 per month was reasonable.

The court determined that the award of ₹3,000 per month was appropriate considering the social status of the parties and the respondent's financial capacity.

It upheld the Family Court's decision to deny maintenance to the wife for failing to establish "sufficient cause" for separate living and affirmed the maintenance of ₹3,000 per month for the minor son.

The criminal revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit.