1 2025:CGHC:43919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1069 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pushpa Jaiswal W/o Sanjay Jaiswal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Pasid, Police Station And Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Kalpana Jaiswal D/o Sanjay Jaiswal, Aged About 13 Years Revisioner No. 02 Is Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt. Pushpa Jaiswal, R/o Village - Pasid, Police Station And Tahsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Sanjay Jaiswal S/o Late Tarasram Jaiswal, Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Grocery Shop And Agriculture, R/o Village - Salka Nawagaon, Police Station And Tahsil - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and grant the maintenance as claimed before the family court in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/revisioners filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance and interim maintenance. The marriage between Revisioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2008 as per Hindu customs, and out of their wedlock, a daughter (Revisioner No.2) was born, who resides with her mother. Earlier, a case for maintenance was filed but subsequently withdrawn on 01.03.2024 on account of compromise, pursuant to which Revisioner No.1 went to reside with the respondent. However, the respondent, suspecting her character and under the influence of liquor, allegedly subjected her to cruelty and ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home. The respondent is stated to be running a grocery shop and bicycle store, earning about Rs.15,000–20,000 per month and also possesses agricultural land yielding about Rs.3,00,000 annually, whereas Revisioner No.1 is a homemaker with no source of income, and therefore, she claimed Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance and interim relief. The respondent, however, denied the allegations, contended that the wife has been living separately for the last seven years at her maternal home, and prayed for dismissal of the application. The Family Court, after hearing, held that Revisioner No.1 (wife) is not entitled to any interim maintenance till final disposal of the case, but awarded Rs.1,000 per month to Revisioner No.2 (daughter). Aggrieved by the said order, the revisioners have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law, facts and circumstances 3 of the present case. The Learned Family Court erred in denying interim maintenance to the wife (Revisioner No.1), which is unjust and against the spirit of social justice, particularly when it is admitted that the marriage was solemnized between the parties and a daughter was born out of the wedlock, who is living with the mother. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the respondent is having sufficient and regular source of income as he is running a grocery shop, a bicycle store and also owns agricultural land yielding substantial annual income, and therefore, he is financially capable of maintaining the revisioners. In such circumstances, the denial of interim maintenance to Revisioner No.1 is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to law. 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 appreciating the pleadings and material placed on record, rightly held that Revisioner No.1 (wife) is not entitled to interim maintenance at this stage, particularly in the absence of any prima facie evidence to substantiate her allegations of cruelty or to establish that she was compelled to live separately. The Court has also correctly taken into consideration the fact that the respondent had earlier entered into a compromise with Revisioner No.1 and that she has been residing separately for several years without any justifiable reason. However, keeping in mind the welfare of the minor child, the Family Court has awarded interim maintenance of 4 Rs.1,000 per month to Revisioner No.2 (daughter). Thus, the impugned order is well-reasoned, balanced. 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