1 2026:CGHC:1264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 19 of 2026 Shri Ranveer Gilhare S/o Shri Laxminarayan Gilhare Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Singhanpuri, Police Station- Chandnu, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Durgeshwari Gilhare W/o Shri Ranveer Gilhare Aged About 31 Years R/o Adsena, Police Station Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Aditya Gilhare S/o Shri Ranveer Gilhare Aged About 14 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Mother)- Smt. Durgeshwari Gilhare W/o Shri Ranveer Gilhare (Respondent No.1) R/o Adsena, Police Station Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Gitanshu Gilhare S/o Shri Ranveer Gilhare Aged About 4 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Mother)- Smt. Durgeshwari Gilhare W/o Shri Ranveer Gilhare (Respondent No.1) R/o Adsena, Police Station Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents when the case is called out of hearing. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.09 17:22:21 +0530 2 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.), in Case No. 1122/2024, in the interest of justice” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Along with the said application, an application for interim maintenance was also filed. In the aforesaid application, it has been stated that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 15.10.2008 at Village Adsena, District Raipur. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born, namely Aditya Gilhare and Gitanshu Gilhare, who are presently aged about 14 years and 4 years respectively. At present, both the sons are residing with respondent No. 1. It is further stated in the application that the applicant works as a mason (Rajmistri) and used to go to cities like Pune, Hyderabad, Nagpur, etc., leaving behind his family. It is alleged that he never sent money to respondent No. 1. It is also alleged that he was living with a woman namely Santarabas as husband and wife, and that she is presently residing with the applicant at his village Singhanpuri. When respondent No. 1 received this information, she along with her in- laws and other village elders visited Village Singhanpuri on 29.08.2024, where the applicant allegedly refused to keep respondent No. 1 and their sons with him and also denied paying any maintenance. It is further alleged that he abused and assaulted respondent No. 1 and did not allow 3 her to stay at his house. The said incident was reported to Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, on 02.09.2024. The respondent No. 1 further stated in her application that her father-in-law is an aged person suffering from old-age ailments and is being taken care of by respondent No. 1. 5. The applicant submitted his reply to the said application. In his reply, the applicant specifically stated that he does not have an income of Rs. 60,000/- per month. He further stated that his father owns agricultural land, which is being used by respondent No. 1, and that the entire income generated from the said land is being utilized by respondent No. 1 herself. The applicant also filed an application dated 24.10.2025, praying before the learned Family Court that the interim maintenance application be decided only after recording evidence from both the parties. However, the said application was not considered by the learned Family Court. 6. The learned Family Court, vide its order dated 03.12.2025, granted an exorbitant maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, from the date of the application, i.e., 03.09.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and based on no reliable evidence. The respondents did not file any documentary proof to establish the income of the applicant. The learned Court mechanically assumed a higher income without any factual basis. Maintenance cannot be granted on mere conjectures and surmises. She submits that the applicant has a very meagre income and has his own liabilities, including aged parents, debts, and medical needs. Grant of Rs. 10,000/- per month exceeds the applicant’s financial capacity and is 4 impossible for him to comply with. She further submits that the impugned order is in clear violation of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been held that interim maintenance must be based on verified financial capacity. The learned Family Court failed to follow the said mandatory guidelines. The impugned order does not discuss the evidence submitted by the applicant, nor does it provide any reasoning as to how the figure of Rs. 10,000/- was arrived at. After compliance with the said order, the applicant is left unable to meet even his own essential expenses. She submits that the applicant had filed an application dated 24.10.2025, praying before the learned Family Court that the interim maintenance application be decided only after recording evidence from both the parties. However, the said application was not considered by the learned Family Court. The interim order places an unreasonable, arbitrary, and unsustainable financial burden upon the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek