1 2025:CGHC:37239 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 917 of 2025 Sai Kumar Mankunda S/o Shri M. Babu Rao Aged About 28 Years R/o A / 208ridsiniya Interli Park, Bachupalli, Hyderabad (Telangana ) ... Applicant versus Ankita W/o Sai Kumar Mankunda, Aged About 26 Years R/o 77/a, W.A. Taip Township, Ward No. 22, Dallirajhara, P.S. Rajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod C.G. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, alleging that her marriage with the applicant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was solemnized on 14.02.2024 at Hyderabad and that shortly thereafter she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant and his family members, compelling her to return to her parental home on 19.05.2024, where she has been residing since. She also filed an application for interim maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and stated that the non-applicant had left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and despite several efforts by him to bring her back, she refused to live with him. He further submitted that he has filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which are pending, and that the non-applicant is well-qualified (B.Tech, pursuing M.B.A.) and employed as a content writer earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, making her ineligible for maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 06.05.2025, allowed the interim application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the non- applicant as interim maintenance, which is now under challenge in this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to law, as the learned Family Court failed to consider that the non-applicant left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and continues to live separately despite several efforts by the applicant to bring her back. The Court also overlooked the fact that the applicant had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, reflecting his willingness to resume 3 cohabitation. Moreover, the non-applicant is well-educated (B.Tech, pursuing M.B.A.) and employed as a content writer earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, making her capable of maintaining herself and disentitling her to claim maintenance. The Court further failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence, including counseling proceedings before the Mahila Cell, and awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is excessive considering the applicant’s limited income, hence the impugned interim maintenance order is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and submissions of both parties, rightly allowed the non-applicant’s application for interim maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The Court carefully noted the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand made by the non-applicant, her lack of independent financial stability despite her qualifications, and the fact that she has been residing at her parental home since 19.05.2024. The Court also examined the applicant’s objections, including his claim of her employment and the pending proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but found that, in view of her present needs and the applicant’s earning capacity, an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month was fair and reasonable to secure her sustenance until final adjudication of the case. 4 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 8. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of BNSS, preferably within a period of three months, if there is no any legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan