1 2026:CGHC:5285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 160 of 2026 Ankit Agrawal S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o - House No. L-24, Ward No. 6, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495223 At Present R/o - Mishra Bhawan, Sector - 8/ A, Kamal Vihar, Dunda Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) - 492015. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Surabhi Agrawal W/o Ankit Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o - House No. L/24, Ward No. 6, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o - C/o - Dharmendra Kumar Agrawal, H-18, Rajeev Nagar Extension, Near Shiv Temple Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) - 492007. 2 - Vijay @ Abhi Agrawal S/o Ankit Agrawal Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Surabhi Agrawal, W/o - Ankit Agrawal, R/o - House No. L/24, Ward No. 6, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o - C/o - Dharmendra Kumar Agrawal, H-18, Rajeev Nagar Extension, Near Shiv Temple Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) - 492007. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and further be please to set- aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 647/2025 between "Smt. Surabhi Agrawal & others Vs. Ankit Agrawal" (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that The respondents filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) seeking maintenance from the applicant. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 04.12.2022 and out of the wedlock respondent No.2 was born on 19.04.2024. The respondents alleged that respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty and physical assault by the applicant, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home on 17.05.2024 and reside with her parents at Raipur. It was further pleaded that the applicant is employed as a teacher at Krishna Public School, Kamal Vihar, Dunda, Raipur and is earning a salary of Rs.48,960/- per month, yet failed to maintain the respondents, whereupon an application for maintenance along with interim maintenance and legal expenses was filed. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the 3 matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, that she is well- educated, healthy and capable of maintaining herself and the child, and that she failed to disclose her income and assets as required under the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha. The learned Family Court, by order dated 27.11.2025, directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of application i.e. 26.05.2025 till disposal of the main maintenance application, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) is per-se illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance on the higher side without properly considering the afÏdavits of income, assets and liabilities filed by the parties in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, and further failed to ensure strict compliance by respondent No.1 in disclosing her source of income, capital and liabilities as mandatorily required. The respondent No.1 deliberately suppressed material facts regarding her financial capacity, and despite being a healthy and highly educated woman capable of earning and maintaining herself, the learned Family Court erroneously concluded that she is unable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the maintenance has been awarded on the basis of conjectures and surmises without proper appreciation of the material on record. The learned Family Court has also 4 committed a jurisdictional error in directing payment of maintenance from the date of application i.e. 26.05.2025, which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, thereby rendering the impugned order liable to interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the order dated 27.11.2025 after due consideration of the pleadings, material placed on record and the statutory obligations of the applicant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The learned Court has rightly taken into account the subsisting marital relationship between the parties, the birth of respondent No.2 from the wedlock, the prima facie finding of neglect and failure on the part of the applicant to maintain the respondents, as well as the immediate needs of the wife and minor child. While granting interim maintenance, the learned Family Court has exercised sound judicial discretion by awarding a reasonable and modest amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2, keeping in view the earning capacity of the applicant, the financial requirements of the respondents and the settled principles governing grant of interim maintenance. The impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 5 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan