1 2025:CGHC:57501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1432 of 2025 Vivek Banjare S/o Tilak Banjare Aged About 23 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Mohtara, Post- Gadamor, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Vandana Banjare D/o Suman Prasad Chaturvedi Aged About 26 Years W/o Vivek Banjare, Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Mohtara, Post- Gadamor, Police Station And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) At Present R/o Village- Kanteli, Police Station- Lalpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 134/2025, whereby the learned Family Court concerned, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent, as interim maintenance. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance, before the learned Family Court along with an application for grant of interim RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 maintenance, stating therein that the respondent is legally married wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2024 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, she went to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, but she was bearing all the cruelty, but she was bearing the cruelty with a hope that in future the behaviour of inlaws family members towards the respondent would be changed, however the cruelty was extending day- to-day and ultimately she was ousted from the matrimonial house on 10.12.2024, therefore she is living in her parental house. The respondent has no source of income, though the applicant is having sufficient source of income, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the respondent, therefore she filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed reply to the application for grant of maintenance. After perusing the documents and materials available on record, vide impugned order dated 27.10.2025 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent is living separately from the applicant without any reasonable cause. It is further submitted that the applicant has already made several efforts to bring the respondent, but she is refusing to live with the applicant. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 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 BNSS, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months, in accordance with law. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar