1 2025:CGHC:55838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1379 of 2025 Smt. Pooja Gopwani W/o Gopal Gopwani, D/o Shri Ashok Chhuttani Aged About 39 Years Permanent R/o Quarter No. 6, Street 8, Behind Pani Tanki, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg C.G., Currently Residing At E W S 95, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Gopal Gopwani S/o Ramesh Gopwani Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. 6, Street 8, Behind Pani Tanki, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg C.G., 2 - Divyana Gopwani D/o Zubin Hansrajani Aged About 8 Years Through Legal Guardian Gopal Gopwani, Permanent R/o Quarter No. 6, Street 8, Behind Pani Tanki, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg C.G., Currently Residing At E W S 95, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District Durg C.G. … Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.11.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “The applicant humbly and most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Case No. 1230/2024.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and non- applicant No.1 were married on 25.01.2019 at Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Gurunanak Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Durg (C.G.), and their marriage was subsequently registered with the Municipal Corporation on 15.03.2019. Prior to the marriage, the applicant had disclosed to non-applicant No.1 that it was her second marriage and that she had a daughter from her previous marriage, with whom she wished to reside, and the non-applicant No.1 had consented to the same. The applicant had also informed him about an agreement dated 08.05.2017 executed with her previous husband, pursuant to which they were living separately. After marriage, the applicant and non-applicant No.1 resided together along with non-applicant No.2; however, following the demise of the mother-in-law in 2021, the conduct of non-applicant No.1 towards the applicant deteriorated, and he started neglecting her. Thereafter, non-applicant No.1 began residing separately with his father at Sector-2, Bhilai, without maintaining the applicant, compelling her and non-applicant No.2 to live with her father at Vaishali Nagar. Aggrieved by such conduct, the applicant Aled an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, on 33.08.2024. The non-applicant No.1 appeared after service of notice, Aled his reply as well as an aCdavit in compliance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. Along with the Section 144 petition, the applicant also sought interim maintenance, and vide order dated 09.09.2025, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) directed non-applicant 3 No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant as interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason and without considering that non-applicant No.1 himself, in his aCdavit, has admitted his monthly income to be Rs.50,000/–60,000/–. It is argued that non-applicant No.1 failed to produce any document to substantiate the expenses claimed by him and, despite this deAciency, the learned Principal Judge proceeded to pass the order without proper scrutiny. It is further submitted that the law on maintenance, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Kamla, 1975 (2) SCR 483, mandates that maintenance should restore the wife to a similar status and standard of living as enjoyed during matrimony, and the purpose of such provisions is to ensure that a dependent wife does not fall into destitution. He further contends that the burden to prove that the applicant was earning Rs.25,000–30,000 per month was on non- applicant No.1, which he wholly failed to discharge, yet the learned Family Court ignored this aspect despite the applicant’s clear denial. It is further urged that once the non-applicant admitted an income of Rs.50,000–60,000 per month, judicial propriety required that the applicant’s status as a wife should have been adequately secured. It is submitted that there is no material on record to show that the applicant is working, and the learned Principal Judge has passed the impugned order merely on assumptions, conjectures 4 and without considering the settled principles governing grant of maintenance. 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 09.09.2025 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 Anancial capacity of the non-applicant, and the immediate needs of the applicant, has rightly exercised its 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 Anal adjudication on merits remains unaGected. The order neither suGers from perversity nor from any legal inArmity 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 Anding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not And any illegality or inArmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 5 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. OCce is directed to send a certiAed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan