1 2025:CGHC:39864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 980 of 2025 Smt. Sita Bai Dhruw W/o Ganesh Prasad Dhruw Aged About 54 Years R/o C/o Smt. Sonali Luniya, Quarter No. 3, Janta Quarter, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ganesh Prasad Dhruw S/o Late Tukaram Dhruw Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 41, Gali No. 1, Mitan Chowk, Subhash Nagar, Durg, P.S.- Padmanabhpur, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 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 09.07.2025 and award interim maintenance in favour of applicant, 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. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance, stating that the non-applicant was earlier married to one Smt. Sushila Dhruw and from that wedlock two sons, Manoj (30 years) and Tarun (28 years), were born, later, after divorce, the said sons have been residing with the non-applicant. It was further stated that the applicant married the non-applicant on 28.06.1999 according to Hindu rites, and from this marriage two children, Meena and Surya Prakash, were born. Initially relations were cordial, but as Manoj and Tarun grew up, they, along with the non- applicant, allegedly started abusing, assaulting, and harassing the applicant, which culminated on 22.03.2023 when the applicant and her children were allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home and have since been residing in a rented house. The non-applicant, employed in the Municipal Corporation, Durg, earning about Rs.60,000 per month and owning agricultural land, has allegedly not provided any maintenance. Upon notice, the non-applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 09.07.2025, the learned Family Court partly allowed the interim application, directing the non-applicant to pay Rs.3,000 per month to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is a government servant employed with the Municipal Corporation, Durg, earning a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and also holding agricultural land, as evident 3 from the bank account statement annexed as Annexure A/4. It has further failed to consider that the applicant was ousted from the matrimonial home by the non-applicant and is now compelled to live separately, despite being a homemaker with no independent source of income. In the prevailing circumstances, when the prices of food grains and essential commodities are high, the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is grossly inadequate to meet the applicant’s reasonable needs, including proper food, clothing, medical expenses, and other personal necessities, so as to maintain a standard of living comparable to that of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has also failed to properly assess and appreciate the documents and evidence produced before it, and the findings recorded are perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record. 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 order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper, and based on due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material placed on record. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of both parties, the nature of the relationship, the allegations and counter- allegations, the financial capacity of the non-applicant, and the immediate needs of the applicant, has rightly exercised its 4 discretion in partly allowing the interim application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The direction to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance is a reasonable and balanced arrangement at this stage, safeguarding the subsistence needs of the applicant while ensuring that the final adjudication on merits remains unaffected. The order neither suffers from perversity nor from any legal infirmity and is well within the parameters of law governing interim maintenance. 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