1 2025:CGHC:37236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 915 of 2025 Madhuri Dhrue W/o Shri Rajendra Dhrue Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Arjuni Post Arjuni, P.S. Bhatapara, Gramin, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Rajendra Kumar Dhrue S/o Late Narayan Singh Dhrue Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Post Arjuni, P.S. Bhatapara (Gramin) District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, 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, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 (ANNEXURE A-1), passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 281/2024, Madhuri Dhrue Vs Rajendra Kumar Dhrue' and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 enhance the interim maintenance up to Rs. 60,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month from the non-applicant, stating that they are legally wedded spouses and that soon after their marriage, the non- applicant started harassing her under the influence of alcohol, causing her mental and financial hardship, and failing to provide any support for household expenses despite having sufficient income from salary and other sources. The non-applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations except the marriage, contending that he already bore expenses for his elder son and described the applicant as quarrelsome and non-cooperative. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025, partly allowed the applicant’s application for interim maintenance, which is now challenged in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence on record, as the Court failed to properly appreciate the material placed before it. The applicant has consistently proved through evidence that she was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment by the non-applicant without any justification, compelling her to seek maintenance. Despite the non-applicant being employed as a Head Master and earning approximately Rs. 58,000/- per month, the interim maintenance awarded is 3 disproportionately low and not in accordance with law or the applicant’s genuine needs. The non-applicant is living separately from the applicant and their children, failing to provide proper financial support, which has left the applicant in severe hardship and struggling even for basic sustenance. 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 applicant filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking Rs. 60,000/- per month as maintenance, alleging harassment by the non-applicant after their marriage and claiming financial hardship. The non-applicant denied the allegations, asserting that he was already meeting other family expenses and highlighting the applicant’s quarrelsome conduct. Upon framing issues and evaluating the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025, partly allowed the applicant’s application for interim maintenance. The order is well-reasoned, based on a fair appreciation of evidence, and reflects a balanced assessment of the needs of the applicant vis-à-vis the non- applicant’s financial capacity; hence, the decision of the Family Court is just and proper. 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 4 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