1 2026:CGHC:19313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 561 of 2026 Sarabjit Singh Kohli S/o Late Gurucharan Singh Kholi Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Bhagat Ram Sindh Katora Talab District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sandeep Kaur Kohli W/o Sarabjit Singh Kholi Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Gokul Apartment Shyam Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Resident - Fateh B-153 New Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Adarsh Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /04/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in CAN No.669/2026, Case No.981/2024, whereby, the learned Family KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2003 in accordance with religious rites and ceremonies at Pandari Gurudwara, and they lived together for about 21 years, out of which wedlock two sons, namely Mansimar Singh Kohli and Manpreet Singh Kohli, both aged about 20 years, were born; that on 01.08.2024, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance alleging that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including harassment for dowry, and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 19.09.2023 and is presently residing at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, along with her sons, sustaining herself by giving private tuitions and assistance from relatives, and further alleging that her stridhan articles are in possession of the applicant; that on the basis of such allegations, she claimed Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance; that the applicant has denied all allegations and contended that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause; however, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the reply and documents submitted by the applicant, passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 3 directing the applicant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 01.08.2024 till final disposal of the case, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record and has been passed without proper appreciation of the reply and documents submitted by the applicant, thereby suffering from non-application of mind and arbitrariness. The Learned Court has failed to conduct any proper inquiry into the income and liabilities of the parties and has not correctly assessed the actual financial position of the respondent, who earns approximately Rs.45,000/- per month and is burdened with personal and family liabilities, making the awarded maintenance excessive and unsustainable. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient or reasonable cause and is residing separately of her own accord, thereby disentitling herself from claiming interim maintenance. It has further been ignored that the parties lived together harmoniously for more than 21 years and no complaint of physical or mental harassment was ever lodged during the subsistence of the marriage, which casts serious doubt on the allegations made. The Learned Court has also failed to consider that the allegation regarding retention of stridhan is false and baseless. He also submits that learned Court 4 has further erred in not considering that the respondent is not a destitute person and is gainfully employed by giving private tuition, thus capable of maintaining herself. It has also been overlooked that she is in possession of/has access to immovable property admeasuring approximately 1200 sq. ft., which provides financial security, and therefore, the grant of interim maintenance without properly balancing the earning capacity and financial status of both parties is unjust, excessive, and liable to be set- aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance, holding that since the marital relationship between the parties is admitted and the respondent is residing separately, she is entitled to receive interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings, however, the learned Court has merely proceeded on prima facie considerations without adjudicating upon the rival contentions regarding the reasons for separation, the independent income and financial capacity of the respondent, and the actual earnings and liabilities of the applicant, observing that such disputed questions can only be decided after 5 evidence, and thus granted interim maintenance to the respondent from the date of application till final disposal of the case or further orders, which is just and proper. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal