1 2025:CGHC:56776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1410 of 2025 Chandrashekhar Pandey S/o Shailendra Pandey, Aged About 34 Years R/o Sagardweep Colony Phase-2, Behind Shyam Residency, Narayan Kunj, Uslapur, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pooja Pandey W/o Chandrashekhar Pandey, Aged About 33 Years D/o Late Dinesh Tiwari, At Present R/o In Front Of Manohar Hotel, Pachrighat, Juna Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Yashika Pandey D/o Chandrashhekhar Pandey, Aged About 6 Months, Through Legal Guardian And Mother Smt. Pooja Pandey, At Present R/o In Front Of Manohar Hotel, Pachrighat, Juna Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.21 17:06:48 +0530 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 717/2024, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance in the application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S.. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that, the respondents filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance along with interim maintenance, asserting that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was alleged that after marriage, upon joining the matrimonial home, respondent No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands, and during the subsistence of marriage she became pregnant and later gave birth to respondent No. 2 on 06.02.2024 through caesarean delivery. Further, it was alleged that on 08.07.2024 the applicant and his relatives assaulted respondent No. 1 and forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial house, compelling her to call Dial-112, after which the police took both parties to Police Station, Sakri. Since that date, the respondents have been residing at the parental home of respondent No. 1 and are stated to be without any independent 3 source of income, whereas the applicant, despite having sufficient means, allegedly neglected to provide any maintenance. The applicant, however, upon notice, denied all allegations and asserted that neither he nor his parents ever subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty, and alleged instead that she frequently quarrelled with his parents, avoided household responsibilities, remained engaged on her mobile phone with others, and voluntarily left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. The applicant further contended that respondent No. 1 is well-qualified, being a B.Tech in Computer Engineering, and is earning approximately Rs. 60,000/- per month by giving tuition classes, nevertheless, after considering the rival pleadings and submissions, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 06.03.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, aggrieved by which the present revision petition is being preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and suffers from patent errors, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 has been residing separately without any reasonable or sufficient cause, and hence is not entitled to claim maintenance, particularly when the applicant had made several 4 bona fide efforts to bring her back, which she refused without justification. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 is a healthy, able-bodied woman, holding a B.Tech degree in Computer Engineering, and is engaged in providing tuition classes, earning around Rs. 60,000/- per month, and therefore the finding regarding her inability to maintain herself is unsustainable. He further submits that it is a settled principle that maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. cannot be claimed as an absolute right, and the Court is bound to consider the conduct, earning capacity and independent income of the claimant; however, the learned Family Court mechanically awarded maintenance on the higher side, despite the low income of the applicant, without proper appreciation of the documents and evidence placed on record, and thereby arrived at an erroneous and baseless conclusion warranting interference in revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has granted Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance in the application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., observing that both the parties had filed their affidavits of assets, income and liabilities along with bank statements, though each had crossed out the portion relating to income disclosure. Considering 5 the admitted marital relationship, the existence of a minor child, and the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and child, the Family Court proceeded to allow the application for interim maintenance, which cannot be said to be on a high side looking to price index at present. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 9. 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 the BNSS, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek