1 2025:CGHC:61546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1504 of 2025 Ravindrajeet Singh S/o Kulbeer Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o 101 Prime Corner- 02, Bevarli Park, Meera Road, Kanfiya, Police Station East Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Avinash Kaur W/o Ravindarjeet Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o 82/24, New Deepak Nagar, Aamdi Mandir Ward, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Harsan Singh S/o Ravindarjeet Singh Aged About 7 Years Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Avinash Kaur, R/o 82/24, New Deepak Nagar, Aamdi Mandir Ward, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 pleased to allow this revision and set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Criminal M.J.C. No. 1107/2025, whereas the revisioner is directed to pay sum of Rs. 15,45,000/- to son as interim the respondents wife and minor maintenance and consequently the whole proceeding of Criminal M.J.C. No. 1107/2025 may be quash, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that that that the non-applicant No.1 / wife filed an application for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Durg on 22.01.2022. The learned Family Court initiated the proceedings and vide order dated 01.10.2022 granted interim maintenance in favour of the non-applicant No.1 / wife and Non- applicant No.2 / minor son to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- per month, out of which Rs. 45,000/- per month was awarded to the wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the minor son, with effect from the date of application i.e. 22.01.2022. The interim maintenance order was challenged by the applicant/husband and the said revision was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3403/2024, directing the learned Family Court to dispose of the pending proceedings within a period of three months. 4. The learned Family Court ultimately concluded the proceedings and passed the final order dated 04.03.2025, whereby the claim of the non-applicant No.1 / wife was rejected on the ground that she was living separately without any just and sufÏcient reason, while the non-applicant No.2 / minor son was granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. After finalization of the maintenance 3 proceedings, the non-applicant No.1 / wife had already received a total sum of Rs. 10,95,000/- from the applicant towards interim maintenance. Thereafter, the non-applicant No.1 / wife filed an application dated 20.08.2025 under Section 144(3) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.) for recovery of an alleged balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-, after adjusting the amount already received by her. 5. The applicant filed his reply to the said application contending that the non-applicant No.1 / wife was living separately without any just and sufÏcient reason, that a total amount of Rs. 10,95,000/- had already been paid and that the final order had rejected her claim for maintenance. The non-applicants filed Writ Petition(227) No. 234/2025 (wrongly mentioned as WP (227) No. 224/2025 in the certified copy) before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court claiming recovery of remaining interim maintenance amount, without disclosing the material fact that the final maintenance proceedings had already been concluded. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 directed the learned Family Court to conclude the pending proceedings under Section 144(3) of BNSS, without issuing notice to the applicant. 6. In compliance of the said direction, the learned Family Court heard the recovery proceedings and vide order dated 31.10.2025 closed the recovery proceedings after adjustment of the amounts already paid. Despite closure of the recovery proceedings, the non- applicant No.1 / wife again filed an application dated 20.08.2025 under Section 147 of BNSS claiming recovery of Rs. 5,40,000/- 4 towards alleged interim maintenance. The applicant filed his reply on 25.10.2025. Vide order dated 29.10.2025, the learned Family Court observed that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the period from 04.03.2025 to 04.08.2025 remained unpaid and fixed the matter for 31.10.2025. 7. On 31.10.2025, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 15,45,000/- towards alleged remaining interim maintenance, without appreciating that Rs.10,95,000/- had already been paid. Hence, the present revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned proceedings initiated under Section 144(3) of the BNSS are wholly illegal, misconceived and an abuse of the process of law, as the learned Family Court, without appreciating the material facts on record, erroneously directed the revisioner to pay an alleged balance interim maintenance of Rs. 15,45,000/-, despite the admitted position that a lump sum of Rs. 10,95,000/- had already been paid to the non-applicants towards interim maintenance up to 04.03.2025, and further despite the fact that the final maintenance proceedings culminated in rejection of the Non-applicant wife’s claim while only the claim of non-applicant No.2 minor son was allowed to the limited extent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is contended that once the final order has been passed rejecting the wife’s claim for maintenance on the finding that she is living separately without just and sufÏcient cause, all interim orders automatically cease to exist and cannot be enforced, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Chandra Aggarwal & 5 Another v. U.P. Financial Corporation & Others, 2009 (6) SCR 931. The learned counsel further submits that the non-applicant/ wife has repeatedly filed multiple applications under Section 144(3) of the BNSS for recovery of interim maintenance for different periods, despite earlier proceedings on the same subject matter having been merged and finally concluded, resulting in contradictory orders, which is impermissible in law. Such repeated litigations clearly demonstrate malicious intent and are aimed solely at harassing the applicant. It is also argued that the Non-applicant/wife has suppressed material facts regarding her independent and substantial income, having falsely declared herself as unemployed in her afÏdavit dated 11.04.2022, whereas she is admittedly working as an online teacher, running side businesses and earning from online platforms, including income generated through modelling assignments of the minor child, none of which was disclosed before the Family Court. Therefore, the continuation of recovery proceedings under Section 144(3) of the BNSS, despite settlement, merger and conclusion of earlier proceedings and rejection of the wife’s maintenance claim, is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, as well as the material available on record, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the order after due consideration of the facts, pleadings of the parties 6 and the history of litigation between them. It is not in dispute that interim maintenance was granted in favour of the non-applicant wife and minor son vide order dated 01.10.2022 and that the said order continued to operate till passing of the final order dated 04.03.2025. It further emerges that during the subsistence of the interim maintenance order, the applicant/husband was under a statutory obligation to comply with the said order and any default or shortfall in payment was liable to be recovered in accordance with law. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that the contention that all interim orders automatically cease to exist upon passing of the final order cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, insofar as the recovery proceedings relate to the arrears accrued during the period when the interim maintenance order was in force. The rejection of the wife’s claim in the final order does not absolve the applicant from his liability to clear the legally recoverable dues arising out of the interim order for the relevant period. The learned Family Court has concerned rightly examined the payments made by the applicant and, after due adjustment, arrived at the amount payable. The record further reflects that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order after considering the replies filed by the applicant and after giving him adequate opportunity of hearing. Merely because multiple proceedings under Section 144(3) of the BNSS were initiated earlier, which were either merged or disposed of, the same by itself does not render the impugned order illegal, particularly when the learned Family Court has quantified the 7 amount after reconciliation of payments. The allegations of suppression of income and malicious prosecution raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in revisional jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. 14. OfÏce is directed to send a certificate copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal