1 2025:CGHC:16809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 460 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jyoti Singh Rajput W/o Jeevan Singh Rajput Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward - 27, Shankar Nagar, Champa, Thana And Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akash Singh Rajput S/o Jeevan Singh Rajput Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward - 27, Shankar Nagar, Champa, Thana And Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jeevan Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Komal Singh Rajput Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward - 27, Shankar Nagar, Champa, Thana And Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for grant of interim maintenance amount has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage has been solemnized on 13.02.2000 as per the rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock two sons have been born who are presently aged about 22 and 25 years. In the year 2022, dispute arose between the parties and both of them started residing separately. Ultimately petitioners have filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of monthly maintenance amount and claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount saying that the respondent was working as Post Master who has taken the voluntarily retirement on 04.07.2022 and received handsome amount from its service and he invested the said amount in various schemes. The respondent is not taking care of his family and not paying any amount towards day to day expenses to them. It is also averred in the application that the petitioners are not having any source of income. Along with the application, the another application for grant of interim maintenance amount has been filed by the petitioners. 4. The respondent in his reply denied the averments of the application and submitted that the respondent has constructed a house at Champa after obtaining loan from the bank in which the petitioners as well as he is residing and he is paying the installment of the loan. The petitioner No.1 has made various allegations against him and she does not want to live with him. His two sons have also not taking care of him and he is 3 residing alone in a room of his house. The petitioners are having their sufficient source of income as they have taken the rent of the house of the respondent, he has also deposited amount in the account of his son, therefore, there is no requirement to grant interim maintenance to the petitioners and their applications is liable to be rejected. 5. After hearing the parties, learned family Court has rejected the application of the petitioners of interim maintenance by holding that the parties are residing in the same house and there is no medium insist to grant interim maintenance to the petitioners which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no source of income of the petitioners, the petitioners are residing separately from the respondent. The ground on which the application has been rejected by the learned family Court is not tenable as the purport of granting maintenance to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of the wife and children, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and interim maintenance may be granted to the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the document annexed with the petition. 8. The present is a case arising out the issue of grant of interim maintenance amount and the final adjudication of the main application of Section 144 of BNSS is still pending before the learned family Court. The entitlement and quantum of maintenance is the discretion of the learned family Court which has to be decided after leading proper evidence of the parties which are to be brought before the learned family Court. Any observation made with respect to the entitlement or quantum of the interim maintenance amount may affect the final 4 outcome of the application. The consideration of the learned family Court at this stage cannot be said to be illegal or irregular which warrant interference. 9. I do not found any good ground to interfere in the order impugned, therefore, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.21 19:30:06 +0530